The Evergreen State College Institutional Repository

The Effect of Environmental Education on Variables Influential to Environmentally Friendly Behavior

Item

Title (dcterms:title)

Eng The Effect of Environmental Education on Variables Influential to Environmentally Friendly Behavior

Date (dcterms:date)

2015

Creator (dcterms:creator)

Eng Ungerer, Mark S

Subject (dcterms:subject)

Eng Environmental Studies

extracted text (extracttext:extracted_text)

THE EFFECT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION ON VARIABLES
INFLUENTIAL TO ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY BEHAVIOR

by
Mark S. Ungerer

A Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
June 2015

©2015 by Mark Ungerer. All rights reserved.

This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree
by
Mark Ungerer

has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by

________________________
Peter Dorman, Ph. D.
Member of the Faculty

________________________
Date

ABSTRACT
The Effect of Environmental Education on Variables Influential to Environmentally
Friendly Behavior
Mark Ungerer
Using variables first proposed by Harold Hungerford and Trudi Volk (1991), a case study
of the Drops and Watts educational field trip was conducted at the WET Science Center
in Olympia, WA. Pre- and post-participation surveys, as well as participant observation,
were used to conduct the evaluation. The program had the most influence over
environmental attitude (as measured by the New Ecological Paradigm) and students’
knowledge of the connection between water and electricity. This connection led to a
wider variety of benefits recognized by students as well as an increase in the conservation
behaviors they were aware of. It was observed that the most effective way to encourage
conservation behavior was connecting the reasons for conservation to the benefits
perceived by the students. This was only effective if the benefits were direct to the
individual rather than altruistic in nature. The results of a multivariate regression
indicated that the observed variables did not have a significant effect on student selfreported behavior. It is recommended that the WET Center use this data to perform long
term research on how repeated participation in their various field trips might have an
additional impact on these variables.

Table of Contents
List of Figures................................................................................................................................vii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................viii
Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................... ix
Chapter 1: Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1
1.1: History of Environmental Education .................................................................................... 1
1.2: Changing Learner Behavior Through Environmental Education ......................................... 1
1.3: Rationale of Study ................................................................................................................ 3
1.4: Chapter Descriptions............................................................................................................. 4
Chapter 2 Chapter 2: Literature Review .......................................................................................... 7
2.1: Introduction........................................................................................................................... 7
2.2: Environmental Education as a Mode of Behavioral Change ................................................ 9
2.3: Behavioral Studies .............................................................................................................. 13
2.4: Conservation Education...................................................................................................... 17
2.5: Effective Environmental Education for Influencing EFB................................................... 20
2.6: Need for Evaluation ............................................................................................................ 22
2.7: Effective Evaluation of Environmental Education Programs ............................................. 24
2.8: Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 28
Chapter 3 Chapter 3: The WET Center.......................................................................................... 30
3.1: Introduction......................................................................................................................... 30
3.2: Drops and Watts Program................................................................................................... 31
3.3: Classroom Presentation....................................................................................................... 32
3.4: Green Building Tour........................................................................................................... 34
3.5: Scavenger Hunt................................................................................................................... 38
Chapter 4 Chapter 4: Methods ....................................................................................................... 41
4.1: Case Study .......................................................................................................................... 41
4.2: Survey ................................................................................................................................. 44
4.3: Participant Observation....................................................................................................... 49
4.4: In Home Water Audit ......................................................................................................... 50
4.5: Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 52
4.5.1: NEP.............................................................................................................................. 52
4.5.2: Is conserving water important?.................................................................................... 53
4.5.3: Does your electricity use affect water use?.................................................................. 53
4.5.4: Do you benefit from conserving water?....................................................................... 53

iv

4.5.5: Do you benefit from conserving electricity?................................................................ 54
4.5.6: Are there actions you can personally take to conserve water?/Intention to perform
water conservation actions ..................................................................................................... 55
4.5.7: Are there actions you can personally take to conserve electricity?/Intention to perform
electricity conservation actions.............................................................................................. 56
4.5.8: Are you performing all the water and electricity saving activities you are aware of?. 57
4.5.9: Will your actions to conserve water and electricity have an impact? .......................... 58
4.5.10: Multivariate Regression............................................................................................. 59
Chapter 5 Chapter 5: Results ......................................................................................................... 61
5.1: Environmental Attitude....................................................................................................... 61
5.2: Knowledge of Issues........................................................................................................... 62
5.2.1: Is conserving water important?.................................................................................... 62
5.2.2: Does your electricity use affect water use?.................................................................. 64
5.3: Personal Investment............................................................................................................ 67
5.3.1: Do you benefit from conserving water?....................................................................... 68
5.3.2: Do you benefit from conserving electricity?................................................................ 72
5.4: Knowledge of Skills............................................................................................................ 74
5.4.1: Are there actions you can personally take to conserve water?..................................... 75
5.4.2: Are there actions you can personally take to conserve electricity? ............................. 76
5.5: Behavioral Intention ........................................................................................................... 77
5.5.1: List any water conservation actions you plan to perform regularly............................. 78
5.5.2: List any electricity conservation actions you plan to perform regularly...................... 80
5.6: Locus of Control ................................................................................................................. 81
5.6.1: Are you performing all the water and electricity conservation activities you are aware
of? .......................................................................................................................................... 81
5.6.2: Will your actions to conserve water and electricity have an impact? .......................... 85
5.7 Multivariate Regression ....................................................................................................... 87
Chapter 6 Chapter 6: Discussion.................................................................................................... 89
6.1: Environmental Attitude....................................................................................................... 89
6.2: Knowledge of Issues........................................................................................................... 92
6.3: Personal Investment............................................................................................................ 94
6.4: Knowledge of Skills............................................................................................................ 97
6.5: Behavioral Intention ......................................................................................................... 101
6.6: Locus of Control (LOC) ................................................................................................... 103
6.7: Multivariate Regression.................................................................................................... 106

v

Chapter 7 Chapter 7: Conclusion................................................................................................. 109
7.1: Summary........................................................................................................................... 109
7.2: Conclusions for the Drops and Watts Program................................................................. 111
7.3: Generalized Conclusions .................................................................................................. 113
7.4: Future Research ................................................................................................................ 114
Bibliography ................................................................................................................................ 117
Appendix I – Survey .................................................................................................................... 122
Pre-Participation Survey .......................................................................................................... 122
Post-Participation Survey......................................................................................................... 125
Appendix II – Code Tables .......................................................................................................... 129

vi

List of Figures
Graph 5.1: Heat map comparing importance of conservation to benefits perceived ..................... 70
Graph 5.2: Responses for question 10 using select Importance/Benefit combinations ................. 83

vii

List of Tables
Table 2.1: Variables presented by Hungerford & Volk and their theorized significance.............. 10
Table 2.2: Demonstrating relationship of variables in Value-Belief-Norm Theory ...................... 15
Table 5.1: NEP Results .................................................................................................................. 61
Table 5.2: Frequencies of main codes for question 2 .................................................................... 62
Table 5.3: Sub-codes for 'yes' responses to question 2 .................................................................. 63
Table 5.4: Frequencies of main codes for question 3 .................................................................... 64
Table 5.5: Sub-codes for yes' responses to question 3................................................................... 65
Table 5.6: Frequencies of main codes for question 4 .................................................................... 68
Table 5.7: Frequencies of sub-codes for 'yes' responses to question 4 .......................................... 68
Table 5.8: Frequencies of main codes for question 5 .................................................................... 72
Table 5.9: Frequencies of sub-codes for 'yes' responses to question 5 .......................................... 72
Table 5.10: Frequency of codes for water conservation actions.................................................... 75
Table 5.11: Frequency of codes for electricity conservation actions............................................. 76
Table 5.12: Frequency of codes for intention to perform water conservation skills...................... 78
Table 5.13: Frequency of codes for intention to perform electricity conservation skills............... 80
Table 5.14: Frequencies of main codes for question 10 ................................................................ 81
Table 5.15: Frequencies of sub-codes for 'no' responses to question 10........................................ 82
Table 5.16: Locus of control for question 10................................................................................. 84
Table 5.17: Frequencies of main codes for question 11 ................................................................ 85
Table 5.18: Frequencies of sub-codes for 'yes' responses to question 11 ...................................... 86
Table 5.19: Locus of control for question 11................................................................................. 87
Table 5.20: Results of multivariate regression............................................................................... 87

viii

Acknowledgements
There are many people who helped to make this research possible. I would first like to
thank my reader and advisor, Peter Dorman, for helping me to not only refine the focus of
my research to make a manageable project, but for helping me to discover ways of
looking at my data that I hadn’t thought of myself. I would also like to thank Amber
Smith and the staff of the WET Center for allowing me access to their field trips and
providing me with a place to conduct my research which would not have been possible
without their cooperation and help. I hope this research provides you with valuable
information regarding your educational programming. Thank you to Jenna Glock, Vicki
Leonard, Brandon D’Arcangelo, and Brian Stave for allowing their students to participate
in this research and administering the surveys.
Thank you to my family for having patience and allowing me the time and focus I needed
to complete this thesis. I would not have made it through without your emotional support
and can’t thank you enough for picking up my slack around the home while I was preoccupied.
Finally, thank you to my MES cohort for providing me with a social outlet when I needed
it most. It is always good to have a supportive group of individuals experiencing your
same troubles to unwind with and I made some wonderful friends in the process.

ix

Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1: History of Environmental Education
Since the mid-1970's, many environmental education (EE) programs have been
implemented with the goal of encouraging environmentally friendly behavior (EFB).
Two conferences were influential in placing emphasis on EE to encourage a more
knowledgeable and capable public with regard to the growing number of environmental
problems facing our world. The Belgrade Charter (1975) was a result of the International
Environmental Workshop held by the United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO). The charter serves as a goal statement for EE, and the
conference served as the first formal attempt to define, and establish basic objectives for,
EE (Athman & Monroe, 2001). The Tbilisi Declaration (1977) was the result of another
UNESCO conference and added to the Belgrade Charter by providing a framework of
principles and guidelines for environmental education at all levels, both formal and
informal (United Nations Educational, 1978). Both of these conferences served as
stepping stones in emphasizing the importance of EE, and it has been a growing field
ever since.

1.2: Changing Learner Behavior Through Environmental Education
Promoting EFB is a primary goal if EE programs, and a common set of variables
most influential to changing EFB needed to be established in order to maximize the
effectiveness of programs. Using the Tbilisi Declaration as a guide, Harold Hungerford
and Trudi Volk proposed a set of variables influential to changing learner behavior, and

1

recommendations on how they could be incorporated into EE programs. There are three
main sets of variables, all with their own subsets, that serve to influence EFB in various
ways. These variables will be further elaborated upon in later chapters and described in
detail. Hungerford and Volk theorized the significance of each variable, some being a
prerequisite to others, some being not nearly as influential, and some that were thought to
be reinforced, but not directly affected by, environmental education (Hungerford & Volk,
1990).
Subsequent studies utilizing these variables as metrics have found that they
cannot uniformly be used to predict EFB. The variables have varying degrees of
influence depending on the particular behavior being studied (McKenzie-Mohr,
Nemiroff, Beers, & Desmarais, 1995). Motivations for performing a behavior such as
utilizing public transportation are vastly different than those for turning off the lights
when leaving a room (McKenzie-Mohr et al., 1995). These discrepancies prevent
establishing uniform models of influence for these variables among different behaviors.
With specific regard to resource conservation, influencing EFB through EE
depends heavily upon the local context in which the behavior is presented (Cary, 2008).
Conserving resources requires a knowledge of local ecosystems and the importance of
said resource to the community. Since resource utilization does not occur in a vacuum,
the most effective resource conservation EE programs should incorporate local
knowledge that expands to a regional level (Fernandez-Juricic, 2000). Context
specificity provides the best opportunity for EE programs to affect behavioral change, but
this local focus also presents other challenges.

2

Widespread and effective evaluation of conservation based EE programs is
lacking, leaving gaps in the research regarding the influence of variables key to
promoting conservation behavior. Since conservation education is specific to the context
of the program, evaluations must also be specific to the program being evaluated, making
evaluation time consuming and expensive (Tao, 2012). Even when evaluations are
carried out, they are often times too narrow in scope and focus on a single variable, rather
than attempting to gauge how numerous variables work together (Athman & Monroe,
2001). These gaps in the research due to limited evaluation leave the influence of EE
programs on specific variables related to EFB largely unknown.

1.3: Rationale of Study
The Water, Education, and Technology (WET) Center in Olympia, WA is
dedicated to promoting water conservation behaviors through a number of avenues. One
way this is accomplished is through field trips offered to schools in Upper Thurston
County. These field trips are organized into different programs. This study will focus on
a single program entitled Drops and Watts. The program was chosen for it's emphasis on
promoting water and energy conservation, highlighting the connections between the two.
The program utilizes many elements that are thought to be necessary for effective EE
such as local focus, hands on learning, and interdisciplinary curriculum (Athman &
Monroe, 2001). This program presents an opportunity to observe how the variables
related to EFB can be influenced by EE, specifically with regard to resource
conservation.

3

The study will look at the various educational curriculum and its implementation
within the program to assess how it serves to influence the different variables presented
by Hungerford and Volk. It will provide access to a sample group of local middle school
students to see if the program reinforces these variables, and to what degree. A follow up
activity will be offered in an attempt to assess the most influential variables in promoting
conservation behaviors, and completion of the activity will be compared to responses on
pre, post, and retention surveys. Results of the study will provide the WET Center with
valuable information regarding the effectiveness of the Drops and Watts programs and
provide recommendations for any modifications that will make the program more
effective.
The study will also contribute to gaps in the research regarding how influential
the observed variables are at promoting everyday water conservation behavior. Since the
program focuses on everyday behaviors that are accessible to most middle school
students, it will provide generalizable data with regard to how the program influences the
observed variables. The results can help to structure future evaluations of resource
conservation education, as well as provide recommendations of effective curriculum and
which variables should be emphasized over others.

1.4: Chapter Descriptions
Chapter 2 (Literature Review) begins by introducing theories regarding the
primary motivators of EFB. Current theories are evaluated and contrasted to present the
variables that are thought to be most influential to encouraging EFB. It then transitions
into how these variables can be incorporated into EE programs. Previous studies that

4

investigated the influence of educational programs on these variables are presented and
their findings discussed. Current educational theory is also presented, and aspects of
effective EE programs are outlined. Finally, the chapter concludes with the most
effective evaluation strategies that can be incorporated into studies that seek to evaluate
the effectiveness of EE programs.
Chapter 3 (WET Center) introduces the Water, Education, and Technology
(WET) Center that is the focus of this study. A brief overview of the WET Center is
given, and its primary objectives are outlines. The chapter then moves into the
educational programs that are offered to middle school students of North Thurston
County. The Drops and Watts program is then described in detail as it is the main focus
of this study. The program is outlined from start to finish, giving an overview of all the
activities the students are engaged in on the field trip.
Chapter 4 (Methods) reviews the methodology used in this study. It describes
how a case study was adopted and developed based on recommendations from previous
research and effective evaluation methods. The survey development is detailed and other
methods of gathering data (participant observation, interviews) are presented. This
chapter also presents the various analysis used with the data, from statistical methods of
comparing matched pairs data, to the coding process used for open ended survey
responses.
Chapter 5 (Results) details the findings from the survey responses. It goes
through each question based on the variable it is designed to measure and presents a
comparison of the pre and post-survey results. The responses that displayed a change

5

from pre to post are evaluated based on how those students may have responded on other
questions to draw connections between the different variables.
Chapter 6 (Discussion) presents the findings from the comparisons made in the
results section. The findings are discussed based on how the different variables are
thought to interact with one another and outlines the variables that were most influenced
as a result of exposure to the Drops and Watts program. Individual level responses are
evaluated based on how answers may have changed from pre to post-survey and theories
as to why the change may have occurred are presented. Theory presented is largely based
on direct observation of the program, interviews with the lead educator of the program,
and previous research that has been conducted. The results of this study are also
compared to findings from similar research that observed the same variables.
Chapter 7 (Conclusion) details the main findings of the study and the importance
they have to the literature as a whole. Limitations of this particular study are discussed
and methodological improvements are suggested. Recommendations for how the WET
Center can improve or change their program to be more effective are also presented. This
chapter concludes with recommendations for future research to further clarify
questions/gaps in the research.

6

Chapter 2 Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.1: Introduction
In a world of increasing environmental concern, the study of what influences
Environmentally Friendly Behavior (EFB) has become increasingly important. Over the
past four decades, studies regarding the primary motivations for EFB have increased and
evolved as new understanding is gained. Early theories of behavioral change pointed to a
simple, linear relationship between knowledge gained and changes in behavior
(Hungerford & Volk, 1990). However, research has since shown that factors influencing
behavior cover a wide array of variables including knowledge of issues, attitudes,
intention to act, social motivations, feelings of control, and many other aspects. Because
of the large number of variables, studying the most effective methods to change and
influence behavior is a difficult and complicated task. Especially with regard to EFB,
behavior is often inextricably linked to local issues concerning ecosystems and human
interactions with the environment. Using a standardized form of testing is therefore an
inefficient method of evaluation, given the variety of influencing factors and context
specificity.
Environmental Education (EE) has become one of the most popular methods of
influencing behavioral change, beginning with the Tbilisi declaration in 1978
(Hungerford & Volk, 1990). Education has many different outlets including schools,
community programs, governmental organizations, non-profits, and non-governmental

7

organizations. All of these outlets seek to inform behavior in different ways, and as
knowledge of behavioral motivation develops, educational programs become more and
more interdisciplinary. Hungerford and Volk, in 1991, presented a theory of the
significant variables that education should target in order to effectively influence EFB.
Many educational programs now incorporate curriculum that seeks to influence these
different variables, but their effectiveness in doing so is still largely unknown because
specific goals for EFB are hard to quantify (Marcus, 2012). Quantifying goals for
wildlife conservation or preservation of endangered species, may be as simple as
measuring the number of animals present in an ecosystem; resource conservation goals
can be measured by the quantity of a resource that has been consumed or saved, but how
can these end goals be tied specifically to educational influences? It may never be
possible to point to general education as influencing conservation goals simply by
studying an end result or number - the educational programs themselves must be studied
to see what, if any, effect they have on the most prominent variables that inform EFB.
This does not present a simple task. Many educational programs are specific to
their location and community, and seek to influence behaviors that matter the most in a
local sense (Fernandez-Juricic, 2000). Since the goals and education methods are locally
specific, so must be the evaluation that would gauge their effectiveness. Many current
evaluations of EE programs are performed to determine funding levels and focus on one
specific variable, such as academic improvement, rather than a variety of elements (Tao,
2012). This narrow focus means many variables are not studied and the full
effectiveness, or lack thereof, is never gauged. There is a strong need for in-depth,
specific evaluations of how EE affects the variables that influence EFB.

8

In this literature review, I will cover research relating to what informs behavior
and move specifically into the motivations behind EFB. I will then demonstrate how
education can serve as a primary source of influence over EFB, and identify the specific
variables that EE can influence to significantly effect behavioral change. Previous
studies on EFB will be compared and contrasted to determine which variables have been
shown to be most significant regarding resource conservation. Gaps in research are
identified as they relate to the relationship between EE and EFB, and the reasons for
these gaps identified.

2.2: Environmental Education as a Mode of Behavioral Change
In 1977 the Tbilisi Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education
was held. This conference, held by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and
Cultural Organization (UNESCO) was summarized with the Tbilisi Declaration (United
Nations Educational, 1978). The declaration stated the importance of environmental
education for a sustainable future and outlined five categories of EE objectives:
awareness, knowledge, attitudes, skills, and participation (UNESCO, 1978). Harold
Hungerford and Trudi Volk used this declaration, as well as previous research of
motivations for EFB, to identify the main components that would comprise a successful
EE program.
From the Tbilisi Declaration, it was apparent that EE had to go above and beyond what is
considered a basic education. Environmental Education had to encompass not only
knowledge, but attitudes, values, and social involvement as well. The traditional model
of knowledge leading to awareness, or attitudes leading to behavioral change was far too

9

simple and insufficient to explain changes in EFB (Hungerford & Volk, 1990). This
supports other research into influences of general behavior, but the study also goes
further in depth in an attempt to identify the full range of variables that serve to primarily
influence EFB. Hungerford and Volk used previous research into EE and determinants of
EFB to identify three main categories of variables that primarily influence EFB: entrylevel variables, ownership variables, and empowerment variables (Hungerford & Volk,
1990). Each category of variable has a variety of sub-categories that are identified as
either major or minor variables in determining behavior.

Table 2.1: Variables presented by Hungerford & Volk and their theorized significance

Entry Level Variables

Ownership Variables

Empowerment Variables

Major Variable
Environmental attitude

Major Variables
Knowledge about issues

Major Variables
Knowledge of and skill in
using action strategies

Personal investment
Locus of Control

Minor Variables
Knowledge of Ecology

Minor Variables

Intention to act
Minor Variables

Knowledge of consequences
of behavior

In-depth knowledge about
issues

Androgeny
Attitudes toward pollution
technology, and economics

Personal commitment to issue
resolution

Of the entry-level variables, the most significant is environmental sensitivity, or
how empathetic an individual is towards the environment (Hungerford & Volk, 1990).
This can also be viewed as a correlate of an individual’s environmental attitude; a pro-

10

environmental attitude would denote a higher degree of environmental sensitivity than
would a less environmentally oriented worldview. One minor entry-level variable,
knowledge of ecology, is thought to be a precursor to sound decision-making with regard
to the environment (Hungerford & Volk, 1990). Knowledge of ecology is defined here as
a conceptual basis for decision making, meaning the decision maker has an understanding
of basic ecological processes such as succession, homeostasis, and nutrient cycling.
While this conceptualization does not directly lead to EFB, awareness of these ecological
concepts has proven important in the decision-making process regarding what behaviors
are performed (Hungerford & Volk, 1990).
The next class of variables presented by Hungerford and Volk are ownership
variables, defined as characteristics that make environmental issues personal to the
learner, giving them a sense of ownership. There are two such variables: in-depth
knowledge and personal investment (Hungerford & Volk, 1990). Providing in depth
knowledge is an easy concept for educators to grasp. The difficulty is in understanding
the level of knowledge that needs to be gained and the most effective methods of
providing this knowledge. Presenting knowledge in a manner which facilitates intention
varies depending upon the topic and behavioral change that is desired. In-depth
knowledge should not just be limited to the ways in which ecosystems function, but how
they are affected by human actions as well. Involving human impact helps to promote
the second ownership variable, personal investment.
Personal investment implies that the learner feels a certain proprietary interest in
the behavior being studied (Hungerford & Volk, 1990). For example, a student who
learns about the benefits of water conservation might feel they have an economic interest

11

in water conservation; it might save them or their family money if they use less water.
Economic interest is, however, only one form of personal investment. If a person has an
understanding of how water conservation helps reduce demands on local watersheds
thereby helping to retain and/or restore ecosystem functioning, this can also be seen as a
benefit to the individual, provided they are ecologically sensitive and feel it is important
to maintain ecosystem services.
The final class of variables is empowerment. Empowerment variables act to give
an individual confidence to perform actions that will have a significant impact
(Hungerford & Volk, 1990). Action strategies are one important empowerment variable.
In order to effectively change behavior, an individual must know what actions can be
utilized in order to achieve a desired outcome. Coupled with this, and almost more
important, is the perceived skill in using these action strategies. A person must not only
know what actions can be taken but also have confidence that they have the power to use
these action strategies and make a difference (Hungerford & Volk, 1990). Locus of
control is a variable that describes how a person might feel reinforced for performing a
certain action. An internal locus of control implies the individual believes he/she has the
ability to bring about change through their own individual actions (Hungerford & Volk,
1990). This can be contrasted with an external locus of control, meaning an individual
feels that change is affected only by chance or by a greater, external force, rather than
their own actions. Internal locus of control leads to behavior change, whereas an external
orientation tends to discourage it (Hungerford & Volk, 1990). People who are more
confident in the effects of their own actions are more likely to perform said actions. This
particular variable is most effectively influenced by repetition of behavior that results in

12

success rather than from learning in a traditional classroom setting, but can be improved
through learning about action skills (Hungerford & Volk, 1990). It is therefore
imperative that environmental programs reach out beyond just a traditional classroom
setting in order to affect the most change.

The final variable is intention to act. It may

seem simplistic but behavior increases significantly in cases where there is an active
intention to act in a particular way (Hungerford & Volk, 1990). If an intention exists it
helps to eliminate split second decision making and increase the chances that an action
will be carried out. Intention to act is thought to be strongly predicated on an internal
locus of control (Hungerford & Volk, 1990). It is also very likely that a necessary
precursor to intention is having knowledge of action skills. It is difficult to form an
intention to act in a certain way if the results of that action are unclear or poorly
understood (Hungerford & Volk, 1990).
All of these variables interact in a variety of ways and share a synergistic
connection to one another. The interaction between them is largely dependent on the
context of the behavior and the nature of the behavior itself (Hungerford & Volk, 1990).
Some serve as antecedents to other, and some cannot necessarily be directly affected by
EE so much as reinforced. Given the theoretical nature of these relationships, it is
important to compare these variables to other theories regarding motivation for
behavioral change.

2.3: Behavioral Studies

13

The variables outlined by Hungerford and Volk to be influential in affecting EFB
come from a long line of theories regarding influences of general behavior. In The
Theory of Planned Behavior, Icek Ajzen offers a similar set of variables that serve to best
predict the way a person is going to act. Ajzen determines that the best way to predict
behavior is by behavioral intention, so he seeks to identify intention's primary influences.
The variables presented by Ajzen to influence behavioral intention closely resemble those
proposed by Hungerford and Volk (Ajzen, 1991). Building off of the earlier Theory of
Reasoned Action, Azjen gives three main perceptions that inform intention: attitude
towards the behavior, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control. The three
relate closely to variables proposed by Hungerford and Volk, lending credit to their
theory regarding the most significant influences behind EFB.
Paul Stern presents his own research of what influences EFB and a framework for
studying it. The product of this research is the Value-Belief-Norm (VBN) theory (Stern,
2000). This theory proposes that values lead to specific beliefs that, in turn form the basis
for personal norms. These norms are what ultimately determines the way an individual
acts (Stern, 2000). In this theory the values form a causal chain, with each variable
directly affecting the next. Variables may also exert influence over others that are further
down the chain (Stern, 2000).
Stern's theory builds upon that presented by Hungerford and Volk by elaborating
upon the significance that each variable might have to a given behavior. In VBN theory,
the significance of each variable in determining behavior is dependent upon the context
of the behavior itself (Stern, 2000). Environmental behaviors are divided into three main
categories: environmental activism, non-activist behaviors in the public sphere, and

14

private-sphere environmentalism (Stern, 2000). Environmental activism is defined as
active involvement with environmental organizations and demonstrations. Non-activist
public sphere behavior comes mainly in the form of support for public policies such as
environmental regulations or higher taxes for environmental protection (Stern, 2000).
Finally, private-sphere environmentalism encompasses those behaviors that relate to the
purchasing, consumption, and disposal of products that have an environmental impact
(Stern, 2000).

Table 2.2: Demonstrating relationship of variables in Value-Belief-Norm Theory

Further studies have compared Stern's VBN theory to Hungerford and Volk's.
Looking at each theory and the variables involved reveals a large amount of overlap
between the two, though the differences in language used make it difficult to draw direct
comparisons (Monroe, 2003). The biospheric and altruistic values presented by Stern
seem to correlate to the variable of environmental sensitivity proposed by Hungerford
and Volk. The beliefs of adverse consequences of actions and the ability to reduce threat
correlate to knowledge of issues and internal locus of control respectively (Monroe,
2003). Both theories also identify knowledge of action strategies as a significant

15

variable. This comparison reveals agreement within behavioral studies regarding the
variables most significant to affecting change.
While the suite of variables is consistent in research, there is some disagreement
as to what variables are the most influential in determining behavior. Azjen’s Theory of
Planned Behavior emphasizes that attitude is the most significant in determining
behavioral intention (Ajzen, 1991). VBN theory claims that attitude can be the most
significant predictor of behavior but the context (activist, non-activist, private-sphere) in
which the behavior is presented will ultimately determine the most significant variable to
illicit change (Stern, 2000). So while there is agreement as the the suite of variables that
serves to influence behavior, there is not agreement that all of these variables carry the
same level of significance in every situation. Since there is so much disagreement, a look
into what research has found when studying these variables is necessary for further
understanding.
Empirical research shows that, while there are some continuous variables that
influence most forms of behavior, there is not a standardized set that can be equally
applied to all forms of EFB in all circumstances (McKenzie-Mohr, Nemiroff, Beers, &
Desmarais, 1995). Certain primary aspects - behavior, intention, and value orientation all have significant influence on almost any EFB, but the ways they are mediated by other
factors can vary widely depending on the specific type of behavior and the context in
which it is studied (McKenzie-Mohr et al., 1995). While the aspects presented by Azjen
are necessary to study, it is unclear how significant each variable will be in a particular
context or setting. This demonstrates the need for specific, context-based studies to be
carried out in order to gauge how different variables influence EFB in a given situation.

16

Other studies have supported this claim as well. In one such study, it was shown
that ecological beliefs (as measured by the New Ecological Paradigm) and values served
to influence a host of other variables, which - in turn - informed EFB (Lopez & CuervoArango, 2008). This study worked contrary to the VBN Theory that beliefs serve to
directly inform personal norms instead finding belief influences a variety of other,
mediator variables that lead to the development of norms (Lopez & Cuervo-Arango,
2008).
With different studies resulting in different findings regarding the primary
informers of EFB, a generalized framework to predict or influence all EFB is not a
practical or effective method. Nevertheless, it is important to understand the core
variables that have varying degrees of influence over specific behaviors so that these
variables can be targeted by EE programs. Focusing on a specific type of EFB, in the
case of this thesis, resource conservation behavior, can help to inform EE programs as to
what variables should be focused on even if the particular context and setting of the
program still has a significant effect on promoting EFB.

2.4: Conservation Education
Resource conservation is one of the most important aspects of a sustainable
lifestyle, especially when the resources are finite. With this in mind, one of the primary
focuses of EE is the conservation of natural resources. The variables theorized to
influence EFB can be affected by conservation-based EE programs, as has been
demonstrated in previous research (Cary, 2008) (Zint, Kraemer, Northway, & Lim, 2002)
(Schelly, Cross, Franzen, Hall, & Reeve, 2012) (Marcus, 2012). In order to effectively

17

promote conservation behavior, it is determined that both internal and external factors of
influence must be accounted for. The context in which the behaviors are taking place is
also significant when developing programs aimed at promoting conservation behavior
through an educational model (Cary, 2008).
With specific regard to water conservation behavior, the elements of effective
change correlate strongly with those presented by Hungerford and Volk, but the research
is limited. Completed studies lend credibility to the influence of these variables in
effectively influencing behavior (Cary, 2008). In one study on Australian water
consumption, variables identified as strongly influencing water conservation behavior are
behavioral intention, individual capacity to respond, anticipated outcomes of behavior
change, attitude toward water conservation, a positive emotional reaction within the
individual, and social norms (Cary, 2008). These show commonality with the
Hungerford and Volk (H&V) variables – intention to act, knowledge and skill in action
strategies, and internal locus of control. The study was conducted in Australia, so
generalizing for American youth may be limited, but it still serves as a guidepost of what
holds the highest influence over water conservation behavior.
In an evaluation of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s conservation education field
trips, pre, post, and retention surveys were administered to examine how the field trips
affect the H&V variables in youth aged 10-18 (Zint et al., 2002). The field trips varied in
length from 1 day to two weeks. In all cases, the field trips were shown to make
improvements with regard to knowledge of issues (Zint et al., 2002). Four of the five
field trips were shown to improve skill in actions, while only three improved knowledge
of ecology and intention to act (Zint et al., 2002). Improvement of the metrics decreased

18

with the length of the field trip; the two week trip showed the greatest improvement and
the scores decreased with the length (Zint et al., 2002). In one surprising result, personal
responsibility was shown to only be influenced by one and three day trips. The
researchers hypothesize this is due to lack of emphasis in the two week program but call
for more research into the H&V variables (Zint et al., 2002). Internal locus of control
was the only variable that did not show improvement in any field trip (Zint et al., 2002),
reinforcing the theory presented by Hungerford and Volk that it is necessary for change
in EFB, but unlikely to be directly affected by EE. It was concluded that EE programs
can affect the desired variables but they need to be focused and offer multiple
experiences over an extended period to be most effective (Zint et al., 2002). This study
looked at general conservation behavior rather than specifically water conservation, but
the sample population was age appropriate as to provide results relevant to this thesis.
Another study examined the importance of local and regional approaches and how
this focus can help improve influence over the variables relevant to EFB. EE programs
that have a local focus show a larger impact on individual’s locus of control,
reinforcement of social norms, and promoting ownership and personal investment in
issues (Fernandez-Juricic, 2000). This is due to local programs focusing on an issue as it
relates to the specific community where it takes place. Programs emphasizing the local
impacts of targeted behaviors, while at the same time showing why it matters in a larger
context, are shown to be the most effective at influencing key variables of EFB
(Fernandez-Juricic, 2000). Local initiatives geared toward issues relating to their specific
location are better positioned to impact these variables than those that take a more general
or standardized approach.

19

2.5: Effective Environmental Education for Influencing EFB
In addition to the variables presented by Hungerford and Volk, and the
importance of programs specific to their location, other elements are also important to
effective environmental education. The information presented to students and the
methods by which this information is administered are important components to any EE
program. Elements such as positive psychology (Zufiaurre, Albertin, & Belletich, 2014),
connection to learners' everyday lives (Athman & Monroe, 2001), interactive and/or
hands-on activities (Newton, 2001) (Hudson, 2001), involvement of community and
stakeholders (Athman & Monroe, 2001) (Hudson, 2001), and implementation at an early
age (Zufiaurre et al., 2014) must all be incorporated to achieve maximum effectiveness.
Positive psychology is an important factor for promoting key elements of
behavioral change, such as personal investment, perceived skill or knowledge of action
strategies, and locus of control (Zufiaurre et al., 2014). When education takes a positive
outlook on human ability to solve the environmental challenges facing our world, it
eliminates the psychology of despair that can lead to apathy and inaction. By promoting
positive, solution-based strategies, EE programs can effectively serve to build confidence
and a positive outlook on the future.
The desired changes in behavior must make some sort of connection to the
learner’s everyday lives (Athman & Monroe, 2001). EE most effectively and influences
behavior change when the targeted behaviors are those that can be performed routinely
and have a direct application to the individual’s life. This allows the learner’s personal
experience to become an active part of their education (Athman & Monroe, 2001).

20

Related to this concept are hands on activities and interactive learning. Especially with
younger learners, classroom instruction that is supplemented with an opportunity to
interact in a tactile and meaningful way with their surroundings facilitates better retention
of knowledge and concepts (Athman & Monroe, 2001). Hands-on activities offer a
chance to implement and enhance problem-solving skills learned in the classroom, as
well as introduce students to new technologies (Hudson, 2001).
Involvement of stakeholders and the community is a necessary component of
successful EE programs to promote social norms and reinforce program objectives
(Athman & Monroe, 2001) (Zufiaurre et al., 2014). An active community interest in the
studied EE program reinforces the behaviors as social norms, increasing the likelihood of
the targeted behavior. Involving stakeholders at all levels of implementation helps to
keep goals focused and provides a consistent learning experience for all who engage in
the programs (Athman & Monroe, 2001). Involvement also keeps up with demographic
changes that occur within the specific community, and encourages a diverse and
interdisciplinary curriculum by allowing various viewpoints to be incorporated into the
learning experience (Hudson, 2001).
Finally, the effectiveness of influencing behavior through education is tied to
early introduction of concepts (Zufiaurre et al., 2014). When concepts are introduced at
ages 10-18, it allows reinforcement of behavior over a longer period of time, establishing
these behaviors as routine. This is especially effective when the desired behaviors are
reinforced through continuing education at various levels. Programs are much more
effective when they are supplemented by continued education presented through
subsequent years (Marcus, 2012). If a stand-alone EE program is administered, it is more

21

effective when supplemented by further instruction through formal education outlets such
as elementary and/or middle schools. If EE is incorporated into a school’s curriculum in
one year, it should be reinforced with instruction in subsequent years.

2.6: Need for Evaluation
The primary variables that influence change in EFB are identified and supported
by empirical research, therefore, many EE programs are beginning to design their
curriculum in a way that promotes these variables. EE programs now more than ever go
beyond the retention of scientific knowledge about issues and also seek to empower
students with the confidence and support to carry out the desired behaviors. This type of
interdisciplinary programming can be difficult to assess because of the sheer amount of
variety within the material. Despite the increasing complexity, in depth, external
evaluations are rare in conservation-based, EE programs (Kleiman et al., 2000).
Through meta-analysis of published reports on EE programs, as little as one third
of programs were shown to have incorporated formal evaluation of objectives and
effectiveness influencing EFB (Tao, 2012). Evaluation of educational programs is a
necessary step to insure that the stated goals and objectives are being met (Busch &
Dayer, 2007). Evaluation also plays a major role in adapting and refining educational
strategies used, including what is incorporated into the curriculum and the specific
methods of delivery employed (Kleiman et al., 2000). Since effective behavioral change
is dependent, not only on the specific variables identified in previous research, but also
on the specific context in which they are presented and taught, successful evaluation

22

specific to the targeted EE program is necessary to ensure effective programming and
implementation (Heimlich, 2010).
There are a variety of reasons for the lack of regular evaluation of EE programs.
Limited resources are one such reason. Many EE programs operate on limited budgets
and are offered either as part of a school curriculum or as free educational programs
offered to the public (Tao, 2012). Limitations on resources make extensive evaluation
difficult. Even in the case of internally conducted evaluations, programs are staffed by
educators who are limited in the time available to conduct the kinds of comprehensive
evaluations needed (Kleiman et al., 2000). In the case of externally conducted
evaluations, budgetary constraints prevent hiring an evaluator from outside the program
(Crohn & Birnbaum, 2010). When evaluations are conducted, they are often summative,
or occur once a program has run its course with the aim of making funding decisions
(Athman & Monroe, 2001). When the goal of evaluation is to determine future funding
for programs, it can be seen as punishment, or as a result of perceived failure on the part
of the EE program being evaluated (Tao, 2012). If evaluation did not carry with it the
objective of determining funding, and was focused instead on identifying the objectives
of the program and measuring effectiveness, these barriers disappear and evaluation
serves the purpose of strengthening EE programs.
Lack of evaluation can work as a positive feedback loop; if evaluations are not a
regular part of the program, educators resist them out of a fear of change (Kleiman et al.,
2000). Complacency is the result when there are no incentives for evaluation and no
consequences as a result of avoiding it (Tao, 2012). Evaluations that do occur often lack
the substance required to effectively measure program objectives, and focus on a single

23

variable rather than a number of variables and the interactions between them (Heimlich,
2010). Too often, evaluations of EE programs focus simply on the retention of scientific
knowledge or facts, a result of poorly defined program objectives (Ardoin & Heimlich,
2013). These kind of evaluations are focused on scientific learning objectives. While
these learning objectives may be one desirable outcome of EE programs, they are rarely
the sole purpose behind them.
This lack of research and evaluation of EE programs leads to large gaps in the
research regarding the effectiveness of current programs and strategies. Evaluation must
become a regular part of EE programs to fully understand the relationship between
education and EFB. Evaluations should seek to improve programs, not punish them
monetarily based on narrowly defined performance indicators. Programs should be
designed with incorporated evaluations to budget resources and provide a level of
comfort to educators that the evaluation works towards their goal and outcomes rather
than as an adversary. Evaluations are a necessary step to understanding the influence of
EE on EFB. Only once this influence is better understood can EE programs achieve
maximum effectiveness.

2.7: Effective Evaluation of Environmental Education Programs
There are many different methods to evaluate EE programs, and the proper
method of evaluation should be determined by the objectives of the program being
studied, as well as the goal of the evaluation. Evaluations can be focused or general,
internal or external, and have a number of different objectives, but not all of them are
going to be as effective as one another. Even though the best method of evaluation will

24

depend on on the specific program being studied, there are some general aspects that lead
to more effective evaluation in general.
Regarding the question of internal or external evaluation, each can have its
particular benefits. Internal evaluation carries with it the ability to be conducted by
someone who has great familiarity with the program, including its mission objectives and
the methods with which the curriculum are implemented (Athman & Monroe, 2001).
This can be a benefit but can also lead to conflicts of interest. Internal evaluations run the
risk of being confounded by the interest and bias of the evaluator. If the evaluator has a
vested interest in the success or failure of a program, the results can be affected by a
desire for positive results (Kleiman et al., 2000). An external evaluation does not suffer
from the same constraints; they are not influenced by any risk that might be involved in
the success or failure of a program (Kleiman et al., 2000). When evaluations are
completed regularly, it would make sense to have a member of the staff dedicated to
evaluation on a full time basis; one that does not hold a vested interest in the curriculum
or implementation of the program. If the evaluations are not incorporated into the regular
programming, using an external agent makes the most sense to insure the objectivity of
the evaluation (Heimlich, 2010).
Regardless of who is conducting the evaluation, it must always be driven by the
mission goals of the EE program itself (Tao, 2012) and serve to move the program
towards accomplishing specific conservation goals (Heimlich, 2010). If the program
being evaluated does not have explicitly stated goals or objectives, the evaluator must
work closely with the educators to define what the measure of success will be (Athman &
Monroe, 2001). This will ensure the evaluation is relevant to the program studied.

25

With regard to resource conservation, education outcomes are hard to measure in
end use statistics. Therefore, evaluation must be done in a way that can measure progress
toward these goals, rather than the ultimate achievement of a conservation goal (Kleiman
et al., 2000). Measures of progress can include attributes such as the development and
knowledge of skills, intents, and behaviors as they relate to the conservation goal at hand
(Ardoin & Heimlich, 2013). These recommended attributes of evaluation correlate
closely with the variables that influence EFB (Hungerford & Volk, 1990).
Many EE programs have goals beyond the dissemination of information and
evaluations must be organized in a way that measures variables beyond retention of
knowledge (Athman & Monroe, 2001). Organizing evaluations in such a way insures
they evaluate the interdisciplinary nature of EE programs while still maintaining the goals
of the program as the basis of measurement. Evaluations must be geared toward the
specific program that they seek to measure, rather than rely on a standardized form of
evaluation.
When the evaluation takes place is also an important consideration to make.
Summative evaluations, or those that are conducted once the program is finished, lack the
holistic nature necessary to measure success (Crohn & Birnbaum, 2010). Formative
evaluations, those conducted while the program is ongoing, offer a better chance to
incorporate the end result of a program and the instruction itself (Tao, 2012). Formative
evaluations give an opportunity to study the interaction of learners with various aspects
of the program and offer a chance to understand how each part of the program leads
learners to the desired outcomes (Kleiman et al., 2000).

26

The focus and scale of the evaluation are also important to consider. An evaluator
may want to look at a specific aspect of an organization that is dedicated to EE, rather
than looking at the organization as a whole. Defining the scale and focus will help
organize evaluation to be effective (Kleiman et al., 2000). Scale is determined primarily
on the EE program studied and the resources available to the evaluator. Formative
evaluations can have a narrow focus and time scale that offer recommendations to
improve the program while it is still taking place (Heimlich, 2010).
Ultimately, the aspects of a successful evaluation are going to depend on the
program being studied, the goals of the program, the goals of the learners, and the
objective of the evaluation. Successful evaluation involves the stakeholders and
educators either directly informing the evaluation or specifying objectives of the program
(Kleiman et al., 2000). A successful evaluation is the result of careful planning and
organization, and provides meaningful results for the program in question (Stokking et
al., 1999). Informing further evaluations of the program, and providing
recommendations on conducting future evaluations are also key outcomes (Stokking et
al., 1999).
There is a clear need for EE programs, specifically those that attempt to influence
EFB and move organizations and communities toward sustainability goals and outcomes.
Conservation education programs are identified as one of the best ways to influence the
variables that influence EFB, but their effectiveness has gone largely undocumented.
The need to evaluate these programs is significant to determine their effectiveness and
make any necessary changes. It is not enough for the programs to operate on theory
alone, they must incorporate evaluation to measure the success in achieving mission

27

goals and objectives. These evaluations should be based on the objectives of the
examined programs and take an interdisciplinary approach incorporating more than the
retention of scientific knowledge. Environmental education can successfully influence
EFB in the form of conservation behavior, but must be evaluated in order to gain an
understanding of the most effective methods of doing so.

2.8: Conclusion
EE is positioned with the ability to have a major impact influencing EFB. More
specifically, resource conservation behavior. As awareness grows for the importance of
sustainable actions, EE programs must begin to emphasize such behavior. Education
should be looked to as a resource, guiding individuals toward the most effective means to
accomplish sustainability goals. To have the most effective impact, education must
develop interdisciplinary curriculum that goes beyond the retention of scientific
knowledge.
The literature reviewed identifies variables key to influencing EFB through
education. However, large gaps in knowledge still exist regarding how these variables
can be incorporated successfully into EE programs to illicit the desired behavior change.
Research demonstrates varying degrees of success measuring the effects of EE on these
variables. The influence of these variables over EFB and one another depends largely on
the context in which the behavior and education take place. Therefore, the most effective
research methods will be in depth and focused, relating to specific programs and
behaviors.

28

Effective evaluation of EE programs' influence on EFB is a necessary component
to gaining a better understanding of the variables involved and their interactions. These
evaluations must be conducted in a positive manner, seeking to inform the programs how
to improve their effectiveness, rather than threatening continued operation and funding.
Since evaluations of this kind are lacking, there is an opportunity to establish a solid
knowledge base through future research. Evaluation of individual programs identifies the
most influential variables to specific behaviors and increases effectiveness of future
evaluations. Only through this kind of mindful research can the influences of specific
EFB be identified and emphasized.

29

Chapter 3 Chapter 3: The WET Center
3.1: Introduction
The Water Education and Technology (WET) Center in Olympia, Washington is
an educational center designed to teach citizens about their water resources. It was
established by the Lacey, Olympia, Tumwater, and Thurston (LOTT) Clean Water
Alliance; a non-profit corporation responsible for managing the waste water in the region.
The WET Center was established to promote certain goals for LOTT, such as water
conservation, support for reclaimed water, public understanding and interest in the health
of Puget Sound, and to educate people about the utility in general.
The WET Center serves as the main educational hub for the LOTT Clean Water
Alliance. It consists of an educational gallery with interactive displays regarding the
importance of water and the water cycle, as well as conservation strategies, and
stewardship ideas. There is also a classroom in the center used for hands-on activities
and classes that help to supplement the displays in the gallery and allow students to
process what they have learned at the Center. An interdisciplinary framework is used in
which the students learn about biology, ecology, how a community manages resources,
skills to take action, green building, and career opportunities. The WET Center strives to
make all these connections within participants through a number of different ways. The
center is free and open to the public, citizens can take advantage of the gallery at any time
they wish during normal operating hours. Special events are also organized for teaching
the community about water technologies and facts, and usually take place on the
weekend. Finally, the WET Center offers educational field trips which consist of a tour

30

of the treatment plant, educations presentations, and hands on learning. It is one of these
field trips that is the focus of the present study.
The educational field trips are offered by the LOTT Clean Water Alliance to
North Thurston School District. Transportation fees are included to help get students to
the Center from their schools, and the field trips are provided free of charge. The field
trips share a common goal of promoting water conservation but do so through various
methods and draw different connections from everyday life to water conservation. There
are two main field trip programs, Wastewater Treatment and Drops and Watts, offered to
middle schools from North Thurston School District. This study focuses on the Drops
and Watts Program.

3.2: Drops and Watts Program
The Drops and Watts program is designed to teach students about the connections
that exist between their water and electricity resources. It also emphasizes the ways
water is used in almost every aspect of everyday life, from food production to the
manufacturing of clothing. Through revealing these connections, various strategies of
conserving water and energy are presented to encourage students to think carefully about
their daily use of water and power. There are three main components of the field trip: a
classroom presentation, a tour of the WET Center building, and a scavenger hunt in the
exhibit gallery. Students are given a journal to complete throughout the entirety of the
trip.

31

3.3: Classroom Presentation
The first part of the field trip is the classroom presentation. This presentation is a
combination of short videos, a visual presentation, teacher instruction, and student
participation. The student journal for this portion contains fill in the blank questions that
are answered in the various short videos, a diagram of the urban water cycle that the
students use to identify where electricity is used, and partner questions that call on the
students to identify water and electricity saving strategies they can use in their own
homes.
The presentation begins with a video that introduces students to water resources
on planet earth. It details the percentage of water on our planet that is potable compared
to our overall water resources and gives statistics of average water use by the United
States, Europe, and Africa. The video also gives an overview of how fresh water supply
is shrinking and demonstrates how much water goes into the production of food and other
common items. The journal section that corresponds to this video asks students to record
the average daily use per person for the three countries listed as well as the average
amount of water used to make a cheeseburger.
The next part of the presentation presents students with the connections between
water use and electricity use, first through a demonstration of the urban water cycle.
Students are shown a cross sectional above/below ground illustration of Olympia that
shows how water is pumped from aquifers to wells and water towers. This cycle is
explained to students and they are asked to put stars over the areas where energy is used

32

to transport and clean the water. The illustration serves the purpose of identifying how
electricity is required to transport water to and from homes as well as where Olympia
residents get their water from and what happens to it after it leaves their homes. Water
treatment is identified as a point where a large amount of energy is used to clean water so
it can be pumped into Puget Sound or used as reclaimed water. Giving students an
understanding of this urban water cycle is one of the primary components of the Drops
and Watts program. Students are then asked to talk with one of their peers for a few
minutes about ways they can reduce their water use at home in order to conserve energy
and are given an opportunity to share their ideas with the rest of the class.
The next part of the presentation covers how water is used in generating
electricity. Another short video is used to cover the history of the steam powered turbine
used to generate electricity. A history of steam generation is presented along with how
steam is still used to generate the vast majority of electricity today. This video also
covers how water is used, not only to generate the electricity, but to cool and condense
the steam back into water. A breakdown of the various freshwater uses in the United
States is given, demonstrating how electricity production accounts for 40% of freshwater
use, agriculture is responsible for another 40%, and the final 20% is used in homes,
business, and industry. Once the video has concluded, a graph is shown that illustrates
how much water is used for a variety of different sources of energy. Another graph is
shown, illustrating that direct water use per person, per day, is only about 10% of the
water that is used for electricity and food production. Students are then asked to discuss
with one or two classmates how they can reduce energy use in their homes in order to
save water. Ideas are then shared with the rest of the class.

33

The next portion of the presentation shows how human population has been
growing exponentially over the past 100 years and students are asked how this growing
population will affect water and energy usage. It is explained to the students that both
water and energy prices will both climb with the increased demand that results from a
growing population. In addition to the water and energy conservation strategies already
discussed, as well as renewable energy sources, green building is also offered as a way to
reduce the demand for both water and energy. Average savings of green buildings are
given and the students are asked to record these percentages in their journals. A brief
overview of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program is
given and the WET Center is provided as an example of a LEED Platinum building, the
highest certification offered. A third video is shown that focuses on green building in the
Seattle area to give students an idea of the many careers that are locally available for
those with an interest in green building. These jobs are explained to be a way students
can become actively involved in providing a more sustainable future for themselves and
future generations. Once this video is concluded, the students split into two groups for
the next portion of the field trip.

3.4: Green Building Tour
Once the students have split into two groups, half are taken on the green building
tour and the other half remain in the exhibit gallery for a scavenger hunt. The green
building tour goes through the WET Center building and offers examples of things that
were incorporated into the building to make it more energy efficient and qualify for
LEED Platinum certification. Exact details about the breakdown of how these
implementations contributed to the certification are not offered. It is understood that the

34

students will receive further instruction in LEED certification through their science
classes in school so it is not covered in depth during the field trip. The tour begins
outside and continues throughout various rooms and floors of the WET Center before the
students return to the exhibit gallery for the scavenger hunt portion of the tour.
There are 17 different elements of the building that are covered in the tour. Each
student is given a small card with information on one of these elements to read during the
tour. As the tour covers each component, the students are asked to read their respective
cards and the teacher will then give a brief explanation of each. The different
components covered in the tour are as follows:
1. Sustainable Transportation - Bike racks and an electric charging station are
identified. Students are told how the WET Center provides bus passes for their
employees so they are encouraged to take public transportation.
2. Reclaimed Water - A water fountain and water features on site use reclaimed
water from the LOTT treatment plant. This demonstrates how the reclaimed water can be
used for fountains and other public features without having to use clean water that could
otherwise be used for drinking.
3. Outside Glass - The glass on the WET Center senses temperature and light to
automatically raise and lower shades to help save energy use associated with
heating/cooling as well as lighting.
4. Native Plants - Native plants are used to decorate the landscape so they can
easily grow without people needing to water them. They also offer familiar plants for
native pollinators.

35

5. High Efficiency Plumbing Fixtures - Toilets in the WET Center are low flow
and use reclaimed water to conserve water resources.
6. High Efficiency Heating and Cooling Equipment - The WET Center uses high
efficiency heating and cooling equipment that is powered by a co-generation plant that
uses methane from

the waste treated at the LOTT water treatment plant.

7. Concrete Floor and Low VOC Paint - The concrete floor and low VOC paint
help to reduce contaminants to the indoor air quality.
8. Wood Ceilings - Ceiling and walls in the building are made from reclaimed
wood taken from old warehouses that once occupied the site where the Hands On
Children's Museum is now located.
9. Cork Flooring - Cork tiles are a sustainable source of flooring since the cork
can be harvested without killing the tree and is rapidly renewable.
10. Recycled Carpet Tiles - Carpet tiles are made from recycled materials and can
be replaced in sections in the event of damage or staining.
11. Green Elevator - A high efficiency elevator is powered by the same cogenerators that power the heating and cooling systems, though employees are encouraged
to take the stairs.
12. Green Roof - Parts of the roof provide habitat for native plants, which help to
keep the building insulated and conserve energy related to heating and cooling.

36

13. Recycled Seat Belt Chairs - Chairs are made from recycled seat belts that
would otherwise be thrown out to demonstrate how items that were once only waste can
be re-purposed.
14. Lighting - Light fixtures use high efficiency bulbs and are automatically
dimmed when there is natural lighting. They are also hooked to motion senors and
automatically turn off if there is no movement for a period of time.
15. Ply-Boo Furniture and Bookshelves - Bookshelves and furniture in the offices
and conference rooms are made from bamboo plywood. Bamboo is identified as a
rapidly renewable resource.
16. East Bay Public Plaza and Hands-On Children's Museum - These areas are
pointed out as examples of SITES certification. Similar to LEED but for outdoor public
spaces.
17. Paperstone - Paperstone is used on the counters and table tops in the WET
Center. Made from recycled paper, this product is not only renewable, but comes from
Gray's Harbor, which is just a few miles from Olympia.
All of these aspects of the building contributed in some way or another to the
LEED Platinum certification of the building. Students listen to their classmates explain
one of the features and record details in the journal. Once the tour is concluded, students
return to the exhibit gallery to begin the scavenger hunt while their classmates take the
building tour.

37

3.5: Scavenger Hunt
The scavenger hunt offers a chance for the students to engage in the exhibits in
the gallery to connect what they have learned in the classroom presentation with their
everyday lives. It consists of eight different exhibits that are used to answer questions in
the student journals. For each exhibit, there are from one to four questions in the journal
and the students have a half hour to answer them all. Students are encouraged to work in
groups of two to three to complete all exhibits in the time allotted. The different exhibits
are as follows.
1. Water Drop Game - This game has students following a water drop from an
aquifer through the urban water cycle. Students are awarded points for each stop the drop
makes along the way and are encouraged to make as many stops as possible to get the
maximum use from the water drop. The game ends with the drop being put into Puget
Sound or used as reclaimed water.
2. Calculator - This calculator is a large, wall mounted display that allows
students to add up the water use for a variety of daily activities to see how much water
they use in a day. Certain assumptions are made about how much water is used for each
activity. Once the students have added up their use and hit the equal button, empty gallon
containers mounted on the wall light up to give a visual representation of the amount of
water used. Students can then compare this to the average use in Thurston County, the
United States, and worldwide.

38

3. Water Treatment at LOTT - This is a touch screen display that gives real time
information about the amount of water treated at the treatment facility. It gives
breakdowns of the amount of water passing through at various time intervals from daily
to yearly. This gives students an idea of the local amount of water consumption and
illustrates the need for treatment.
4. Treatment Process - The fourth station is a learning exhibit about the various
chemical and biological processes that take place within the treatment facility. Students
learn about different microbes that are used in the treatment process and how each is
useful at breaking down the waste. This exhibit also gives a step by step time line of
what happens to the water on its journey through the treatment process.
5. LOTT Career Game - A touch screen display offers students a chance to get an
overview of various jobs available at the LOTT treatment center. There are xx jobs,
(NAME JOBS) and each has a game associated with it that gives examples of the type of
work that is performed in

each job. Students are encouraged to choose a job that

seems most interesting to them to record in the journal, along with the reason it was
appealing.
6. Reclaimed Water - The reclaimed water exhibit gives examples of how
reclaimed water is used and asks students to identify if reclaimed water or drinking water
are most appropriate for a variety of different uses.
7. In Home Conservation - This exhibit offers examples of different ways to cut
down on water use in the home. There is a faux kitchen/bathroom constructed with
examples of how to cut down on water use as well as an interactive touch screen. The

39

touch screen has students select different rooms to see some common habits that are
wasteful and gives recommendations on how to remedy them.
8. Co-generation - The final exhibit demonstrates how waste is used to create
energy in the LOTT treatment plant through the use of co-generation. It is an interactive
touch screen that gives an overview of the co-generation process and displays how much
power the treatment plant has generated through this process. Students learn how this
process is used to provide heat and electricity to the LOTT Regional Service Center and
the Hands-On Children's Museum.

Once students have completed all of the stations and

filled out their journal, they are encouraged to explore other exhibits if there is still time.
All students then return to the classroom for a short debriefing, and the teacher is given a
gift bag containing five minute shower timers and a hot water sensing card. The shower
timers are to help students remember to take shorter showers and the hot water card can
be run under a hot water tap to see if students can have their parents lower the
temperature on their water heater to conserve energy.

40

Chapter 4 Chapter 4: Methods
4.1: Case Study
For the purpose of this research, a case study was determined to be the most
effective and useful method. This case study focused on the Water Education and
Technology (WET) Center in Olympia, Washington, more specifically, their Drops and
Watts field trip program for middle school students of Upper Thurston County Schools.
This focused approach was determined to be the most useful to obtain in depth and
extensive data on this particular program and the influence it has on variables that
influence environmentally friendly behavior (EFB). Previous research shows that the
most effective methods of evaluating EE programs are those that allow the researcher to
focus on the specific program being studied, rather than take a more general approach
(Monroe, 2003) (Kleiman et al., 2000).
This method was ultimately selected with the hope that it would provide the most
useful and relevant information to the research question: What are the effects of a youth
environmental education program on variables that influence environmentally friendly
behavior? Several sub-questions are also addressed by this research: Does particular
curriculum and implementation affect these variables in different ways? How do these
variables interact with one another with regard to water conservation behavior? What are
the most important variables that influence water conservation behavior?
A case study methodology was chosen over other methods that would look at
numerous education programs, rather than focusing in depth on one particular program.

41

Looking at numerous programs would cause the evaluation to be generic in nature, and
previous research shows this to be not as effective at gathering the rich, complex data
necessary to properly evaluate EE programs (Zufiaurre, Albertin, & Belletich, 2014)
(Athman & Monroe, 2001). A case study provides more complete and relevant
information to the program being studied and is more conducive to effective
methodologies identified from previous research (Zint, Kraemer, Northway, & Lim,
2002) (Smith-Sebasto & Walker, 2005).
This method was ultimately selected with the hope that it would provide the most
useful and relevant information to the research question: What are the effects of a youth
environmental education program on variables that influence environmentally friendly
behavior? Several sub-questions are also addressed by this research: Does particular
curriculum and implementation affect these variables in different ways? How do these
variables interact with one another with regard to water conservation behavior? What are
the most important variables that influence water conservation behavior?
There are several drawbacks to this type of focused research. The first and most
obvious being that focused research on a single program offers limited generalizability to
all EE programs that seek to influence EFB. Since only a single program was studied an
attempt was made to connect water conservation behavior to specific variables. By
identifying the variables most influential to water conservation behaviors in the observed
middle school students, the results can be generalized to all of Upper Thurston County
middle schools.

42

Separating the curriculum used by the WET Center from the implementation, or
how it is presented to the students was more difficult. Since the presentation is specific
to the educators and gallery exhibits of the WET Center, drawing general conclusions
that apply to all EE programs was not possible. However, the results do provide other EE
programs that seek to influence water conservation behavior with a model that can be
useful to their own particular programs.
The population of the study is also limited when using case study methodology.
The only students that participate in the Drops and Watts program are middle school
students from schools in the Upper Thurston County School district. The results are
therefore only applicable to this particular population rather than middle school students
nationwide. While the results may not be generalized to wider populations, they can help
to inform evaluations of other, similar EE programs.
There were several different forms of data collection utilized in this case study.
The primary source of data was surveys administered to the students directly before and
after participation in the program, and a retention survey provided a week or more after
participation. Direct interviews with educators from the WET Center were also
administered to get an overview of the desired objectives of the program. Participant
observation was undertaken at the WET Center during the visits of the surveyed classes.
An in home water audit was also provided by the researcher to students who were
surveyed as an attempt to allow them opportunity to engage in a water conservation
behavior after they participated in the Drops and Watts program.

43

4.2: Survey
A pre/post/retention model was adopted for administration of the survey, modeled
after other research attempting to measure similar variables as a result of participation in
EE programs (Zint et al., 2002) (Smith-Sebasto & Semrau, 2004) (Smith-Sebasto, 1995)
(Kruse & Card, 2004). This model allows for information to be gathered directly (within
24 hours) before and after participation in the program (in the event that the field trip
happened on a Friday, the survey was administered the following Monday), as well as at
a later period to measure retention. The retention portion of the survey was given no less
than one week after students completed the post-participation survey. There was
insufficient response rate on the retention survey, so meaningful data could not be
collected. Ideally, the retention test would be administered after a longer period of time,
three to six months after participation. Due to the time-frame available to this research,
this extended period was not possible.
A letter was sent out, via email, to teachers from Komachin, Chinook, Aspire, and
Nisqually Middle Schools. Of these, all responded except for those from Aspire. Two
classes from Komachin participated with a total of 38 students. From Chinook,
numerous classes participated but communication was only conducted with the science
teacher, Brandon D'Arcangelo. Chinook schools yielded 100 responses from students on
the survey. From Nisqually, all communication happened through Brian Stave, the
science teacher for the middle school. Nisqually Middle School yielded 148 responses.
There is a potential bias since one of the schools was not represented in the survey though
this was deemed minimal since they are all from the same school district.

44

The survey was administered to the students by their teacher in a classroom
setting. The researcher was not present for the administration of the survey. Initially the
survey was developed as a hard format, pen and paper survey. A digital format was then
developed after discussion with teachers regarding the most convenient administration for
their students in the classroom. Digital format also allowed for responses to be instantly
recorded and viewed by the researcher and saved time and money associated with
delivering and retrieving hundreds of hard copies. Both formats were offered to teachers
after the initial survey, and all chose the digital format.
The survey was developed as a way to gauge variables identified by Hungerford
and Volk as being influential to EFB (Hungerford & Volk, 1990). The specific variables
used in this study have been identified in previous research as being the most influential
with specific regard to resource (water) conservation behavior. The variables identified
were environmental attitude, knowledge of issues, knowledge and skill in action
strategies, personal investment, locus of control, and behavioral intention (Zint et al.,
2002) (Cary, 2008). The post-participation survey also included general information
regarding the students’ enjoyment of the field trip, what they found most engaging, and
what they desire to know more about. These were included as a way of identifying which
methods of instruction and/or hands on activities were most engaging to the students.
The survey was a mix of 7 point Likert scale questions, open ended questions, and a
question asking the students to illustrate their understanding of the urban water cycle.
Environmental attitude was measured using endorsement of the New Ecological
Paradigm (NEP) revised for use with elementary and middle school students (Dunlap,
Van Liere, Mertig, & Jones, 2000) (Manoli, Johnson, & Dunlap, 2007). The NEP was

45

chosen for its success gauging general environmental attitude in the past and research
demonstrates this adapted version to be successful with the age range examined in this
study. A general measure of environmental attitude was chosen as this particular variable
is not specific to the EE program or behavior studies, whereas variables such as
knowledge of issues or behavioral intention are more program and behavior specific.
Other measures of general environmental attitude were looked at for suitability to this
study but they were either too long (40+ questions), not age appropriate, or did not have
the repeated, empirical success that the NEP offers.
This adapted NEP consists of ten, seven-point Likert scale questions. The Likert
scale asks students to rate their agreement with statements by choosing one of seven
responses: strongly disagree, disagree, somewhat disagree, neutral, somewhat agree,
agree, strongly agree. In order to avoid possible bias due to suggestive wording, six of the
questions are worded in a way that reflects endorsement of the NEP and four are worded
in the reverse (Manoli et al., 2007). This revised NEP is designed to measure three areas
of environmental worldview: rights of nature, human exemptionalism, and eco-crisis
(Dunlap et al., 2000).
The answers were scored based on the level of endorsement and summed. The
highest possible score is 70, showing strong endorsement of the NEP and a minimum
score of 10 would show almost no endorsement of the NEP. Since the NEP has been
used empirically with success, it is considered one of the foremost and accurate measures
of environmental attitude available. The data was analyzed using matched pairs t-tests to
compare the difference in mean score between pre- and post-participation NEP scores.
The NEP was also broken down into the three factors it is meant to gauge to determine if

46

there is one factor that is more strongly affected after participation in the Drops and
Watts Program.
To evaluate the variables influential to EFB, open ended questions were chosen
for their ability to capture rich, contextual information. Previous studies of EE programs
determined that this kind of information was most useful in determining the effects of a
specific program on similar variables (Smith-Sebasto & Walker, 2005). The questions
for use with the WET Center were adapted from other studies that sought to measure the
same variables with regard to other EE programs (Smith-Sebasto & Walker, 2005)
(Smith-Sebasto, 1995) (Marcus, 2012). Adaptation was a necessary step to make sure
that the questions measured responses with regard specifically to student experiences at
the WET Center and the behaviors promoted by the Drops and Watts program.
For the open ended response portion, two questions were designed to measure
knowledge of issues, two for personal investment, two for knowledge and use of action
skills, two for behavioral intention, and two for locus of control. The questions were
drafted by the researcher and revised based on input from Amber Smith, the educational
director at the WET Center. This collaboration ensured that the survey questions would
be effective at not only measuring the desired variables, but was also useful in making
sure the questions were age appropriate in terms of vocabulary and understanding of
concepts. The open ended format allowed for connections to be made between the
different variables measured and specific parts of the program. Since these connections
could be drawn through the student responses, it allowed for better recommendations on
how to improve the program by fine tuning specific parts to influence variables that were

47

not as affected. It was more effective at interpreting how different aspects of the
curriculum influenced the different variables measured.
These open ended questions were analyzed by coding the responses and
comparing the frequency and type of each code. All qualitative data analysis was
performed using MAXQDA version 11 (release 11.1.0, build 150305). The knowledge
of issues questions were looked at to see how an understanding of the issues was
influenced after participation in the program. The water/energy connection was looked at
to see if any new connections were made between the two resources and how the students
viewed the connection. The personal investment questions were coded based on the type
of benefit the student perceived from conservation behavior. Knowledge and skill in
action strategies were analyzed by making a tally of the different actions listed and
comparing the frequency and variety of actions between pre/post surveys. Behavioral
intention was compared to the strategies listed to determine if there was a stronger
intention to perform more behaviors after participating in the Drops and Watts program.
The locus of control questions were analyzed based on what kind of locus of control was
identified in the answers, internal, external, or group, and what barriers were perceived as
preventing engagement in conservation behavior.
In some studies, these variables were all measured using Likert scale responses.
These kinds of questions are more suited for a generic study and do not allow for the in
depth data desired for the particular variables examined. Likert scale responses would
not allow for the connection of responses to specific aspects of the program unless they
were already implied within the questions. Since Likert scale questions ask to rate your

48

agreement with a per-determined statement, that kind of implication bias was avoided by
allowing students to articulate their own responses.

4.3: Participant Observation
Aside from the survey, participant observation was also performed during the
program. The observation involved the researcher being present during the field trips that
the surveyed classes were attending. This presence allowed the researcher to not only
observe how students interacted with the exhibits in the WET Center gallery, but also
allowed for observation of the teaching methods and presentation. While the researcher
was present during all aspects of the trip, he did not interact with the students so as to not
introduce a bias that would potentially prevent the results from being applicable to other
classes that were not observed or surveyed. Even though interaction was limited to
prevent bias, the very presence of an observer could have introduced bias into the study
but this risk was deemed minimal compared to the advantages participant observation
offered.
During the presentation portion of the program, the researcher viewed the
presentation and took notes. The primary purpose was to gather information regarding
how the material is presented to students. Also noted from this observation was how
engaged the students seemed in the presentation and material, how they responded to
prompts from the teacher, and what opportunities they had to process and interact with
the information that was presented. The researcher never took an active part in the
presentation, and was instead a silent observer to avoid introducing any confounding
variables.

49

During the second portion of the program, the classes are split up into two groups.
One group goes on a tour of the WET Center building and the other completes a
scavenger hunt in the exhibit gallery. During this portion, the researcher chose a group to
follow through both the tour and scavenger hunt. The decision to follow only half of the
students was made for the following reasons. First, there was only one researcher
present, so it would have been impossible to gather data observing both portions of the
trip at once. Second, it was determined that the most effective method of data collection
would be to observe both the tour and the scavenger hunt in their entirety so both portions
of the program got equal observation time. These aspects prompted the decision to
follow one half of the students through the building tour and the scavenger hunt, rather
than trying to split time between the two groups of students. A potential bias could arise
if there were differences in the way the two groups interacted with the exhibits, though
since they were from the same class, the potential for bias was determined to be minimal.

4.4: In Home Water Audit
To examine if any particular variables were more influential in promoting water
conservation behavior, a voluntary in-home water audit was offered to students who
participated in the Drops and Watts Program. The audit was offered as an opportunity to
engage in a conversation oriented behavior that any student would be able to complete.
Several other activities were considered such as organizing a stream clean, but ultimately
it was determined that too many barriers existed for activities that would take place
outside of the student’s homes. The main barriers thought to exist are reliance upon
parents for transportation and scheduling, and the need for adult supervision during the

50

activity. The in home water audit is something the students can complete on their own at
their own pace with minimal adult help or supervision.
The audit was an existing activity that was created by the WET Center as a follow
up activity. It is not given to every class that participates in the field trip, only offered as
a follow up activity at the request of teachers. Responses were not tracked by the WET
Center so previous data regarding the response rate for these audits was not available.
The audits were given to the students by the researcher and it was made clear that they
were not for credit of any kind related to their school work, but a completely voluntary
activity to be completed if they wanted.
The actual results of the audit were not looked at or studied. The students that
returned the audit were recorded, and their responses on the surveys were looked at for
common variables. If there was a common variable more strongly identified in surveys
of students who returned the audit, it was determined that variable showed a stronger
influence over water conservation behavior.
Since the audit does not measure every behavior encouraged by the WET Center,
it is limited in its ability to pinpoint a specific variable most influential to all of these
behaviors. However, completion of the audit represents a commitment by the student to
engage in water conservation and offers an action strategy to do so. Since observation of
all the different behaviors promoted by the Drops and Watts program would be
impossible for the scope of this research, this audit was considered the most effective
way to observe participation in an actual behavior outside of participant self-reporting.

51

Only eleven students returned a completed water audit. Due to the low response
rate, the results of the water audit were deemed inconclusive and specific ties between
actual behavior and the influenced variables were not able to be made.

4.5: Analysis
4.5.1: NEP
For the NEP portion of the survey, a matched pairs t-test was performed on the
composite scores. After the analysis was complete, the scores were sorted into the three
categories the NEP is designed to measure:, eco-crisis, rights of nature, and human
exemptionalism. Matched pairs t-tests were performed for pre and post-survey scores for
each of the three categories. All statistical operations were performed with JMP
statistical software version 11.2.0.
For all questions, the following codes were identified in direct response: yes, no, I
don't know, did not answer. For 'yes' responses, the students most often just stated 'yes'
and elaborated with reasoning, this was also the case with 'no' responses. 'I don't know'
answers were sometimes directly stated and sometimes a decision was made to code an
answer such as 'I think so but maybe not' as 'I don't know.' 'Did not answer' responses
were coded most of the time when the question was left blank, or in the event of an
answer 'I'm not sure what water conservation means'. This answer was coded as 'did not
answer' rather than 'I don't know' since it reflects a lack of understanding regarding the
concept in question. Others simply left the question blank, or, in some cases, answered
with only a question mark. Out of these main codes came a variety of sub-codes for the

52

'yes' and 'no' responses, see Appendix II for tables of all the codes and sub-codes
identified in the answers.
4.5.2: Is conserving water important?
Most of the codes for this question are self-explanatory in nature, though the
difference between 'future use' and 'scarcity' may be unclear. Answers coded as 'future
use' were worded in a way that identified future generations being able to utilize the
resource due to conservation efforts in the present day, whereas 'scarcity' identified an
understanding of the small percentage of water on earth that is drinkable, or the lack of
access to clean water in certain parts of the world in the present.
4.5.3: Does your electricity use affect water use?
Once the responses were coded into the main response categories, sub-codes were
created to identify what kinds of connections students believe to exist between electricity
use and water use. Codes were also created to reflect why students believe no connection
exists, though these answers were not very elaborate and mostly consisted of reasons
such as 'they have nothing to do with each other'. Several of the 'did not answer'
responses were coded due to answers that were seen as not serious such as, 'because I
can't put a toaster in the bathtub.'
4.5.4: Do you benefit from conserving water?
Sub-codes for this question were identified based on what kind of benefit students
perceived as a result of their conservation efforts. Sub-codes for the 'no' responses
differed from pre and post-surveys. Aside from the 'no reason given' response, the only

53

code identified in the post-surveys was 'makes no difference'. In the pre-survey, there
were two codes aside from 'no reason given'. 'Plenty available,' coded to reflect a
response that indicated an unlimited supply of water, or indicating that the water cycle
would constantly replenish the supply, and 'future generations' indicating that the student
did not think they gained any personal benefit from conservation but that people in future
generations would benefit from conservation efforts today.
The sub-codes derived from the 'yes' responses were straight forward and did not
vary between pre and post-participation in terms of the specific sub-codes identified in
the responses. The difference between 'more available to others' and 'future use' was
determined by whether a student expressed that their conservation efforts would allow
others access to water in the present day as opposed to an answer that demonstrated a
need to conserve so we did not run out of the resource as quickly and were able to use it
for a longer period of time.
4.5.5: Do you benefit from conserving electricity?
Coding for this question was extremely similar to the coding seen on the previous
question regarding water conservation benefits. Sub-codes again differed for the 'no'
responses from pre to post-participation. Pre-participation, only one code, 'unlimited
supply', was identified aside from 'no reason given'. Post-participation, two additional
codes were identified: 'nobody else conserves' was used for one student who thought they
would not benefit if they were the only person conserving, and 'still using electricity' was
used for two students whose answers revealed they felt they were not actually able to take
meaningful steps to conserve electricity.

54

The sub-codes identified in the 'yes' responses did not change between pre and
post-participation, and were also straightforward. The 'health benefits' code was used for
responses that identified some kind of benefit to well-being provided by electricity, such
as warmth or the ability to cook food. One additional code was identified on the postparticipation surveys, 'conserving water', used when students demonstrated that
conserving electricity also has the ability to reduce the amount of water used.
4.5.6: Are there actions you can personally take to conserve water?/Intention
to perform water conservation actions
These two questions were coded based on the kind of action identified in the
response. In order to gauge the effectiveness of the program at increasing the knowledge
of, and intention to perform, the skills mentioned, the overall number of actions listed
was counted and compared between pre and post-participation. Since students were
allowed to list as many or as little actions as they were aware of or intended to perform,
an average of the number of actions listed per student was also calculated. After it was
found that the average number of actions per student increased between pre and postparticipation, a matched pairs t-test was performed in JMP version 11.2.0 to determine if
the increase in the average number of actions listed per student was significant.
'Conservative use' compiled from responses such as 'let rain water plants', 'don't
use water if you don't need to', 'don't waste water', and other similar responses that were
only given by 1-3 students each. The 'other' category differs in that it compiles specific
uses that don't necessarily fall into the 'conservative use' category. These were actions
such as 'don't play with water', 'reuse water bottles', 'encourage others', 'fill cup less', and
similar responses that were only listed by 1-3 students.

55

4.5.7: Are there actions you can personally take to conserve
electricity?/Intention to perform electricity conservation actions
These two questions were coded based on the kind of action identified in the
response. In order to gauge the effectiveness of the program at increasing the knowledge
of, and intention to perform, the skills mentioned, the overall number of actions listed
was counted and compared between pre and post-participation. Since students were
allowed to list as many or as little actions as they were aware of or intended to perform,
an average of the number of actions listed per student was also calculated. After it was
found that the average number of actions per student increased between pre and postparticipation, a matched pairs t-test was performed in JMP version 11.2.0 to determine if
the increase in the average number of actions listed per student was significant.
Actions were coded based on responses from students. Most were straight
forward and reflect the wording as it appeared in the coded segment. 'Other' category is
comprised of actions for which there were only around 1-3 responses and they were not
distinct enough to merit their own category. Examples of codes compiled into 'other'
include 'encourage others', 'use renewable sources', 'don't leave fridge open', 'recycle
more', 'don't sleep with TV on'. Many of the 'other' codes appearing in the knowledge of
skills responses did not appear in the intention responses. One code that was categorized
as other that appeared post-participation and not pre-participation was that of 'turn down
temperature on water heater'.

56

4.5.8: Are you performing all the water and electricity saving activities you are
aware of?
Answers to this question were coded with the standard 'yes', 'no', 'I don't know',
and 'did not answer'. Sub-codes were then identified with regard to each response. 'Yes'
and 'I don't know' responses did not reveal any sub-codes as students did not give
reasoning behind these responses. 'No' responses were coded to reflect the reason given
for not performing conservation actions and these sub-codes were self-explanatory.
Once the reasons were identified, the locus of control (LOC) was determined
based on the identified codes and sub-codes. For all 'yes' responses, an internal LOC was
identified since these students were willing and also felt able to perform the stated
actions. 'I don't know' responses were all coded as an external LOC because the students
did not display a complete understand of their ability to perform conservation actions.
'Did not answer' were not coded to display an LOC as no response left it unclear as to
what kind of LOC was demonstrated. For the 'no' responses, the LOC was determined
from the sub-code identified in the response. If the code identified that the student was
not interested in the activity, or simply didn't was to sacrifice their own comfort, it was
deemed an internal LOC as the student was aware of the action and actively chose not to
perform it themselves rather then recognizing an external barrier. This was the case with
the sub-codes of 'comfort' and 'I don't care'.
In the event that a student did not give a specific reason they were not performing
conservation actions, they LOC was coded as 'external'. This was an assumption made

57

based on non-performance but could have resulted in an inaccurate measure of true LOC
since the reasoning could possibly have been more in line with an internal or group LOC.
Other responses coded as external were 'forget', 'time', and 'too young', as these responses
revealed that the student felt some external force was influencing their ability to perform
these actions. If there were multiple reasons given on a response that resulted in
conflicting LOC, the external sub-code trumped the internal. This decision was made
based on the assumption that if even one barrier to their actions could be perceived as
external it was a more meaningful result, even if there were other reasons given that may
have been more internally motivated.
LOC was coded for 'group' when the responses indicated that a student was not
performing these actions based on the activity of someone else. The sub-code associated
with a 'group' LOC was most often 'family doesn't', when a student indicated their family
wasn't performing these actions so they were not either.
4.5.9: Will your actions to conserve water and electricity have an impact?
Answers to this question were coded in a similar manner to the previous question.
Responses were coded and sub-codes were identified based on the kind of benefit that
students perceived as a result of their actions. Codes and sub-codes were generally
straightforward with regard to this question. Sub-codes for 'no' and 'I don't know'
responses were not identified outside of the LOC identified by the answers. 'Yes'
responses revealed sub-codes relating to the kinds of benefits perceived by students.
Students were allowed to list as many benefits as they were aware of.

58

Internal LOC was identified on responses that believed their actions would have
an impact. The only time the coding deviated from this was if the student responded their
actions would have an impact, but only if other people were performing similar actions.
In this case, the LOC was determined to be group oriented.
'No' responses were coded as having external LOC except in cases where the
student responded no and gave the reason that other people need to or other people are
not performing these actions. A group LOC was recognized in these responses similar to
the coding seen in the 'yes' responses. 'I don't know' were coded as external LOC because
it revealed that students were not aware of any potential impacts of their actions and a
key component in measuring LOC is the expectation of success or influence as a result of
actions performed.
4.5.10: Multivariate Regression
A multivariate regression was used to determine the variables most strongly
correlated with actual behavior. Since the in home water audit did not have a sufficient
response rate to draw meaningful conclusions, self-reported behavior was used as the best
available measure. Student responses to question ten asking if they were performing the
conservation skills they are aware of were scored based on the response. Yes responses
were given a ‘1’ and any other response (no, I don’t know, did not answer) was given a
‘0’.
The independent variables were primarily combinations of codes identified on
other questions. The combinations used were importance of conservation (importance),
perceived benefits (benefits), and the impact of actions (impact). The responses to these

59

questions were all compared to one another to create the categories: importance=benefit,
importance=impact, and impact=benefit. Similar to the scoring of the self-reported
behavior, if the codes for the two categories were congruent, the student was given a ‘1’
for that category. If the combination of responses was anything else, it was scored as a
‘0’.
Other independent variables used were environmental attitude (as measured by
NEP score), and the school which the students attended. NEP scores were divided into
the three areas the modified NEP is designed to measure and scored a ‘1’ if the area
showed an increase in score from pre to post-participation and a ‘0’ if the score stayed the
same or decreased. Similarly for schools, if the student attended a particular school, the
score was ‘1’, otherwise it was a ‘0’.

60

Chapter 5 Chapter 5: Results
This chapter presents the results of the pre and post-participation surveys. The
various questions are grouped by the variables that each was intended to measure and a
summary of the results is presented. The responses are compared between pre and postparticipation to examine if the responses changed, and also compared with one another to
examine if students who changed their answer on one question consistently made similar
changes with regard to other questions. 169 students completed the NEP portion of the
survey both pre and post-participation, 176 students completed the open ended response
portion of the survey for both pre and post-participation.

5.1: Environmental Attitude

NEP (Composite /70)
Rights of Nature /21
Eco-Crisis /28
Human Exemptionalism /21

Mean Score Pre Mean Score Post Difference (Post-Pre) Std. Deviation
48.195
49.077
0.882
0.369
15.615
15.976
0.361
0.184
20.29
21.154
0.864
0.239
12.29
11.947
-0.343
0.215
Table 5.1: NEP Results

The New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) was used to gauge general environmental
attitude. 169 students completed the NEP portion of the survey for both pre and postparticipation. Using a matched pairs t-test, a mean increase of 0.882 points was found
between the pre and post-participation scores (t(168) , std. dev= 0.369).
The NEP was then broken down into the three categories of environmental
attitude it is meant to measure: rights of nature, eco-crisis, and human exemptionalism.
In the section on rights of nature, a matched pairs t-test found a mean difference of 0.361

61

points from pre to post-participation (t(168), std. dev. = 0.184). The same test showed a
mean difference of -0.343 in the human exemptionalism section (t(168), std. dev.= 0.215).
This was the only area of the NEP that showed an overall decrease in the average score.
The largest difference found in a matched pairs t-test came from the eco-crisis section
(t(168), std. dev.= 0.239), with a mean difference in score of 0.864. So while overall the
difference was substantial, the main difference between pre and post-participation came
from the section relating to an impending eco-crisis, with the scores relating to human
exceptionalism actually showing a decrease between pre and post-participation scores.

5.2: Knowledge of Issues
The following two questions were meant to gauge the variable knowledge of
issues.
5.2.1: Is conserving water important?

Table 5.2: Frequencies of main codes for question 2

Code
Yes
No
I don't know
Did not answer

Pre

150
17
4
5

Post

172
3
0
1

The responses on this question show the vast majority of students came into the
program demonstrating an understanding that conserving water is important. The
program did appear to have an effect on this understanding in that only three students did
not recognize the importance after the field trip and no students answered that they did
not know if it was important or not. Since most of the students already came into the

62

program with this knowledge, this question could be modified to more accurately capture
why conservation is important.

Sub-Codes – 'Yes' Responses
Conserving Electricity
Economic Benefit
Ecosystem Impacts
Future Use
Less Need for Treatment
Scarcity
Survival
No Reason Given

Pre (n=150)
1 (0.67%)
5 (3.33%)
19 (12.7%)
11 (7.33%)
0 (0%)
71 (47.3%)
28 (18.7%)
11 (7.33%)

Post (n=172)
14 (8.14%)
15 (8.72%)
16 (9.30%)
22 (12.8%)
4 (2.33%)
84 (48.8%)
26 (15.1%)
12 (6.98%)

Changed to 'Yes' (n=23)
4 (17.4%)
4 (17.4%)
0 (0%)
1 (4.34%)
0 (0%)
8 (34.8%)
4 (17.4%)
2 (8.70%)

Table 5.3: Sub-codes for 'yes' responses to question 2

Looking at the reasons that were given for the importance of conservation,
students that showed an increase post-participation more often identified 'ecosystem
benefit' and 'conserving electricity' when compared to those who came into the program
with this recognition. The increased frequency in recognition of an ecosystem benefit
can be tied to a specific aspect of the Drops and Watts program, the focus on teaching
about the urban water cycle. Educating children about where their water comes from and
where it goes allows them to conceptualize their water use and understand the importance
conservation can have on their local ecosystems. The urban water cycle is highlighted in
both the classroom presentation and in station one of the scavenger hunt and ties water
use directly to the surrounding ecosystem. Much of the program is focused on the
demand human use places on resources but the urban water cycle incorporates the
beginning and end points of water use to give students an orientation of their place in the
overall cycle. The higher frequency of 'conserving electricity' can be explained by the
large increase in recognition of the water and energy connection, as demonstrated by the

63

next question relating to this variable. This was not surprising given one of the main
points of the program is illustrating this connection to students. The increased frequency
does indicate that students are establishing this connection and applying it to other parts
of their knowledge.
One student that identified a yes response pre-participation changed their answer
to no on the post-participation survey. The specific line of coding on the preparticipation portion read, “yes, it saves you on bills in your home,” and on the postparticipation survey their response read, “no, there is plenty of water in nature but it
might be able to save you money at home.”
When comparing the responses of those students who identified a 'yes' response
post-participation and not pre-participation with other questions, the frequency of the
codes identified remained consistent with that of the overall sample.
5.2.2: Does your electricity use affect water use?

Table 5.4: Frequencies of main codes for question 3

Code
Yes
No
I don't know
Did not answer

Pre

63
58
31
24

Post

161
10
2
3

The second question related to knowledge of issues showed a large increase in
the number of students who recognized a connection between water and energy use,
increasing from 35.8% to 91.5% of the overall sample. There was little separation in the
number of yes and no responses on the pre-participation survey (33% no response rate).
The majority of students changed their response to recognize a connection between water

64

and energy use, which is not surprising given this connection is the emphasis of the
program. The divided answers originally observed point to this knowledge as a good
target of education if it can be shown to have an impact on behavioral change. The
patterns revealed in the sub-codes can help to inform what components of this connection
were most effective at reaching the student

Sub-Codes – 'Yes' Responses
Cleaning and Treatment of Water
Generation
Transportation of Water
Water Heating
No Reason Given

Pre (n=63)
5 (7.94%)
29 (46.0%)
8 (12.7%)
8 (12.7%)
14 (22.2%)

Post (n=161)Changed to 'Yes' (n=101)
6 (3.73%) 3 (2.97%)
93 (57.8%) 57 (56.4%)
38 (23.6%) 24 (23.8%)
16 (9.94%) 9 (8.91%)
20 (12.4%) 13 (12.9%)

Table 5.5: Sub-codes for yes' responses to question 3

Since the overall number of students who recognized this connection increased
greatly from pre to post-participation, the majority of all of the responses for the subcodes came from those students that changed their response. The connections identified
for the overall sample of students compared to the students who changed their response to
yes occurred at roughly the same frequencies, with the largest discrepancy being a 1.4%
difference.
As was expected, generation was the sub-code most often associated with the
connection between water and energy use. This is the main point of the classroom
portion of the field trip and a substantial part of the presentation is dedicated to an in
depth explanation of how water is used in the various stages of generating electricity.
Transportation of water being the next most frequent code points, again, to retention of
the urban water cycle. During this part of the presentation, students are asked to identify
all the places in the cycle where electricity is used to transport water.

65

One unexpected result was only one more response revealing the connection of
cleaning and treatment of water. The amount of treatment capacity, and the energy used
during this process, is emphasized at various stages of the field trip. During the same
urban water cycle demonstration as previously mentioned, students are asked to mark the
LOTT treatment plant with a large star to signify the increased amount of electricity that
used in this part of the water cycle. In another part of the classroom presentation a point
is made to illustrate the monthly cost of energy used by LOTT to treat the water and how
this cost is passed on to consumers through their water bills. The amount of water that
passes through the treatment center is also the focus of station three during the scavenger
hunt.
All of the students who initially identified a code of I don't know for this question
identified a yes response on the post-participation survey except for 3 students who
identified a no response. Two of these students identified the no connection sub-code as
their reason and one did not give a reason. For the no connection sub-codes, one
specifically stated, “there is no connection between my energy and water use,” and
another stated, “electricity use does not affect water use, but using water will make the
electricity bill go up.”
3 students who identified a connection between water and electricity use preparticipation changed their answers post-participation. 2 of these students did not answer
the question on the post-participation survey, both of whom originally identified the
generation sub-code as the connection. One of these students identified that there was no
connection between water and electricity use, simply responding “no” to the question on

66

the post-participation survey. Originally, that student also identified the sub-code of
generation as the connection between the two resources.
Examining the responses of students who recognized a connection between water
and energy post-participation and not pre-participation to other questions in the survey,
most responses occurred at the same relative frequencies as the overall sample. The one
question that showed a noticeable discrepancy between the two groups was the question
“Will your actions to conserve water and energy have an impact?” In this question
89.1% of students who recognized the water/electricity connection post and not preparticipation identified that their conservation actions will have an impact, compared to
83.5% of students on the general sample. Only 3% of students responded that their
actions will not have an impact compared to 8% of students in the general sample.
Looking deeper into the sub-codes, students who changed their answer to reflect a
connection between water and electricity use were more likely to recognize an economic
impact as a result of their conservation actions and less likely to consider their actions as
resulting in more available for use.

5.3: Personal Investment
The following questions were designed to gauge personal investment in water and
electricity conservation.

67

5.3.1: Do you benefit from conserving water?

Table 5.6: Frequencies of main codes for question 4

Code
Yes
No
I don't know
Did not answer

Pre

130
22
9
15

Post

156
8
9
3

Looking at how students viewed water conservation did not show a large increase
in the number of students who felt they would benefit by conserving water. Most
students (73.9%) already recognized a benefit before participating in the field trip. This
result is comparable to question two regarding the importance of conservation when
comparing the differences in responses from pre to post-participation.

Sub-Codes – 'Yes' Responses
Conserving Electricity
Economic
Ecosystem
Future Use
Health
More Available to Others
No Reason Given

Pre (n=130)
1 (0.77%)
31 (23.8%)
21 (16.2%)
45 (34.6%)
23 (17.7%)
18 (13.8%)
12 (9.23%)

Post (n=156)
19 (12.2%)
63 (40.4%)
22 (14.1%)
35 (22.4%)
6 (3.84%)
31 (19.9%)
22 (14.1%)

Changed to 'Yes' (n=33)
6 (18.2%)
9 (27.3%)
2 (6.06%)
7 (21.2%)
0 (0%)
4 (12.1%)
8 (24.2%)

Table 5.7: Frequencies of sub-codes for 'yes' responses to question 4

All students who did not answer this question pre-participation identified a benefit
from conserving water post-participation except for one no response and one I don't
know. The student that changed to I don't know responded that they use lots of water now
and are trying to use less but don't know if they benefit as a result or not. The student

68

that changed their answer to no simply answered “nope” on the survey with no reason
given.
Of the students who recognized a benefit from water conservation preparticipation, two did not answer post-participation, two identified the code I don't know,
and three no longer recognized a benefit from water conservation. One student that
changed to I don't know stated, “I kind of do, but kind of don't”, looking at the code
identified on their pre-test, they answered, “I kind of do” but gave no specific benefit.
The other student that changed to I don't know simply answered “maybe” and also gave
no specific benefit on the pre-test. One student that no longer recognized a benefit from
water conservation had originally stated the benefit as, “I want to keep on living,” and for
their reasoning of not benefiting they stated, “I never thought about it before, so I don't.”
Another student who no longer recognized a benefit originally identified more available
to others as a benefit of conservation. Their reasoning for not benefiting was also “I don't
really think about it.” The final student who no longer recognized a benefit originally
just said “yes, because it is important” and post-participation responded “no
because it's not bad.”
With regard to other questions, 100% of students who changed their answer to
recognize a benefit from water conservation post-participation also answered that
conserving water is important, though 97.7% of the general sample answered that way as
well. The main differences appeared in the sub-codes given for the importance of water
conservation. When compared to the general sample, students whose responses changed
to identify a benefit from water conservation less often identified the sub-codes of

69

survival (6% compared to 15% from the overall sample) and scarcity (39.3% compared
to 48.8%). These students more often did not identify a sub-code for the importance of
water conservation (12.1% compared to 7%) The other sub-codes occurred at the same
relative frequencies (within 3% of one another).

Count of Student

Benefit

Importance of
Conservation

Conserving Did Not
Energy
Answer

Conserving Energy

Health
Ecosystem Future Use Benefits

Economic

4

6

Did not answer

2

2

More
Available
to Others

I Don't
Know

1

1

1

Economic

Ecosystem

3

Future Use

2

1

Less Need for Treatment

10

1

5

6

2

2

6

3

8

1

1

2

2

1

3

1

2

3

3

1

2

2

9

Plenty Available

Survival

1

1

No Reason Given

Scarcity

No Reason
Given

No

2

6

5

3

36

13

19

1

3

21

4

6

7

4

3

5

3

3

2

2

Graph 5.8: Heat map comparing importance of conservation to benefits perceived

Since there was a discrepancy observed in what students perceived as the most
important reasons to conserve water and the main benefits they perceived from
conservation, a comparative analysis was done. The heat table demonstrates how often

70

students identified a similar code for both the importance of water conservation and their
benefit, blank spaces indicate no responses with those variables overlapping.
There does appear to be a rift between what students feel is the most important
issue relating to conservation and the benefits they perceive from it, as indicated by the
most frequently occurring responses being scarcity/economic. It is interesting to see the
next two highest benefits related to the scarcity code as being future use and more
available to others since these codes are similar but also distinct. Since scarcity indicates
students perceive an immediate shortage of water, which is most related to the benefit of
more available to others, another comparison was made to see how the different benefits
perceived by students related to them performing actual behaviors. In the absence of a
suitable response rate for the behavior activity, a comparison was made to question ten
regarding self-reported behavior and the reasons for not performing conservation actions
(see section 5.6.1 for further analysis).
Comparing responses to the question, “Are you performing all the water and
electricity conservation activities you are aware of”, these students' responses differed
from that of the general sample. Students that changed their answer to recognize a
benefit from water conservation more often answered they were not performing all of
these actions (42.4% answered 'yes', 48.5% answered 'no') when compared to the general
sample (49.4% answered 'yes', 38% answered 'no'). Further examining the sub-codes
identified in these responses shows that the students who changed their answer to
recognize a benefit more often did not give a reason (43.8% to 20.9% of the general
sample) and more often identified they were not performing them because they had just
learned about them (18.8% compared to 9%).

71

5.3.2: Do you benefit from conserving electricity?

Code
Yes
No
I don't know
Did not answer

Pre

128
14
9
25

Post

152
10
5
9

Table 5.8: Frequencies of main codes for question 5

Most students already recognized a benefit from conserving energy, and the
responses that did change came primarily from students who did not answer originally.
Only four less students answered that they do not benefit from electricity conservation
and given the generally small increase in yes responses it can be determined that this trait
is not strongly influenced by the program but most students already show strong support
of it. Since the majority of students already recognized a benefit, it may be that there are
better ways to determine the influence of the program on this specific variable.
Table 5.9: Frequencies of sub-codes for 'yes' responses to question 5

Sub-Codes – 'Yes' Responses
Conserving Water
Economic
Ecosystem
Future Use
Health
No Reason Given

Pre (n=128)
0 (0%)
66 (52.6%)
14 (10.9%)
35 (27.3%)
10 (7.81%)
11 (8.59%)

Post (n=152)
42 (27.6%)
76 (50%)
13 (8.55%)
28 (18.4%)
3 (1.97%)
22 (14.5%)

Changed to 'Yes' (n=36)
16 (44.4%)
11 (30.6%)
0 (0%)
5 (13.9%)
1 (2.78%)
9 (25%)

The sub-codes for this response do corroborate the finding that students have an
increased awareness of the connection between water and electricity, with conserving
water being identified as an additional sub-code post-participation. This code was
identified in over 25% of the overall responses and was the most common benefit
identified by students that changed their response to recognize a benefit from pre to postparticipation. An economic benefit was recognized most frequently overall, similar to the

72

benefits of water conservation. The difference between the two questions is the
frequency of the economic benefit code varied only slightly for electricity conservation
but doubled (31 students compared to 63 students) for water conservation.
Two students that did not answer this question pre-participation changed their
answer to no post-participation, two remained the same, and 21 changed to yes. Looking
at the specific code segments for the students who identified no benefit, one answered,
“no, because I am still using energy,” and the other simply answered, “nope,” with no
reason stated.
Similarly, one student who responded I don't know changed their response to no
post-participation, three gave the same response, and five changed their answer to
recognize a benefit. The student who changed their response to no stated, “no, because
nobody does.” Of the students who recognized a benefit post-participation, three
identified no specific benefit, one responded, “yes, we will save more water,” identifying
the benefit of water conservation, and the other responded, “yes, because it will save
water and we won't have to spend as much money,” identifying both a water conservation
and economic benefit.
Five students who originally identified a benefit from conserving electricity
identified no benefit on the post-participation survey, five students did not answer, and
two changed to I don't know. Three students who no longer recognized a benefit did not
give a reason why, one responded, “there is alot (sic) already,” and one responded, “you
cannot conserve electricity, you will still be using it.” The students who identified the
code of I don't know both just responded with “idk”.

73

One student who perceived a benefit from conserving electricity did not believe
there was any personal benefit to conserving water. This student identified an economic
benefit of electricity conservation stating 'my parents would pay a lower bill', whereas
their response for not benefiting from conserving water was 'I never really thought about
it.'
Students who changed their answer to recognize a benefit from electricity
conservation between pre to post-participation more frequently listed conserve electricity
(19.4% to 13.1%) and turn off faucet (75% to 54%) as water conservation skills when
compared to the general sample. This carried over into the intention to perform water
conservation actions where more students who changed their answer to recognize a
benefit from electricity conservation intended to not leave the faucet running (55.6% to
44.9%). These students also more often listed the most important thing they learned at
the WET Center as being the connection between water and energy (22.2% compared to
12.5% of the general sample). Response frequencies between students who recognized a
benefit post-participation and not pre remained consistent with the general sample for all
other questions.

5.4: Knowledge of Skills
The following questions were designed to measure students' knowledge of skills
they can perform to conserve water and electricity.

74

5.4.1: Are there actions you can personally take to conserve water?
Actions to Conserve Water
Completely Fill Dishwasher/Washing
Machine
Conserve Electricity
Conservative Use
Don't Leave Faucet On
Food Choices
No
Shorter Showers
Other
Did Not Answer

Pre

Post
13
0
29
74
0
10
113
20
15

25
23
23
95
8
3
134
5
6

Table 5.10: Frequency of codes for water conservation actions

There was not a large difference observed from pre to post-participation in the
number of students who listed actions they are aware of and can take. Nor was there a
shift in the actions most commonly given in the responses of students, with shorter
showers and turn off faucet being the most common on both. This could be a result of a
lack of emphasis during the field trip on identifying a wider variety of actions that can be
taken. In the classroom portion, students are asked to talk with their neighbors regarding
actions they can take and are given a chance to share them with the class. There were not
any actions introduced specifically by the teachers during the observed presentations, so
students were able to learn more actions from their neighbors, but were not taught a wider
variety by faculty during the field trip. There is one station in the scavenger hunt that
relates specifically to actions that can conserve water in the home, but the journal only
asks that students view the bathroom section of this station, which relates to the two
actions students were already most frequently listing as being aware of.

75

There was a drop in the amount of actions listed that were grouped into the other
coding between pre and post-participation. Since a student could list more than one
action that could potentially be coded as other, these rates are identified as an overall
percentage of total actions listed by students rather than the percentage of respondents
that listed an action identifying the specific code. Pre-participation other responses
accounted for 8% of the total actions listed. Post-participation these responses accounted
for 1.6% of the total actions listed.
There was an increase in the number of actions listed per student from pre to postparticipation. When comparing the number of actions listed per-student, a significant
increase in actions listed was found to exist on the post-participation surveys (t(175),
p<0.0001) with a mean increase of 0.36571 actions listed per student.
5.4.2: Are there actions you can personally take to conserve electricity?

Table 5.11: Frequency of codes for electricity conservation actions

Actions to Conserve Electricity
Conserve Water
I Don't Know
No
Turn Off Electronics When Not In Use
Turn Off Lights
Unplug Electronics
Use Electronics Less
Use Natural Light
Watch Less TV
Other
Did Not Answer

Pre

0
8
6
33
91
25
23
14
17
12
21

Post

24
2
7
20
103
63
21
14
12
10
7

Looking at the knowledge of skills that can be taken to conserve electricity
reveals similar results. Most students listed actions on the pre-participation survey, and
there was only a small increase in the overall number of students who listed at least one

76

action from pre to post-participation. The biggest change was the decrease of I don't
know responses and there was even one more student that answered they were not aware
of any electricity saving activities. Since most students were already aware of actions,
examining the specific actions listed will help draw conclusions as to the effectiveness of
influencing this variable.
The increase of knowledge in electricity conservation skills suffers from the same
limitations that the knowledge of water conservation does, varieties of skills are not
specifically discussed with students in depth. In the case of electricity conservation,
specific actions are only discussed in the classroom presentation and not presented in the
scavenger hunt. The building tour does reveal some ways to conserve electricity but they
are presented in terms of building materials and energy efficient technologies that are
incorporated into the built environment, which are not indicative of everyday
conservation behaviors that students can perform themselves.
There were less actions listed per student pre-participation when compared to
post-participation. A significant increase was found to exist in the number of actions
listed per student (t(175), p=0.0003), with a mean increase of 0.29143 actions listed.

5.5: Behavioral Intention
The following questions asked students to list behaviors they intended to engage
in on a regular basis.

77

5.5.1: List any water conservation actions you plan to perform regularly

Table 5.12: Frequency of codes for intention to perform water conservation skills

Intention to Perform Water Conservation Skills Pre
Completely Fill Dishwasher/Washing Machine
Conserve Electricity
Conservative Use
Don't Leave Faucet On
Food Choices
No Intention
Shorter Showers
Other
Did Not Answer

8
0
20
47
0
21
86
18
26

Post

21
23
13
79
7
13
117
3
5

The results of the intention to perform water conservation actions question were
extremely similar to the results on the question regarding knowledge of action skills.
This question asked students to reveal which actions they are aware of that they intend to
perform regularly, and the two most frequently observed responses to both were shorter
showers and don't leave faucet on. These results were not surprising as it was expected
that the most frequently recognized actions would also be those that students intended to
perform.
The various skills that students intended to perform unsurprisingly mirrored those
listed on the question regarding knowledge of conservation skills. The two actions that
were revealed post-participation and not pre were again conserve electricity and food
choices. Indicating that there was some, even if very little, influence of the program on
the kinds of behaviors students intend to perform as a result of the connections they make

78

between water and it's use in various indirect aspects of daily life. There was an increase
to the appearance of every code from pre to post-participation except for conservative use
and other, again showing that students developed a more refined sense of what kinds of
actions can be most effective to perform and therefore changed the kinds of actions they
intended to perform.
Only one student who expressed intention to perform an action pre-participation
did not answer post-participation, their answer pre-participation identified the
conservative use code. Two students who did not answer originally expressed no
intention and the remaining two did not answer on either survey. Five students who
expressed no intention post-participation originally expressed intention to perform at least
one action. The specific coded segments for each similarly read, “I can't think of any”, or
“I don't plan to”.
There was a significant increase in the number of responses listed per student
from pre to post-participation (t(175), p<0.0001) with a mean increase of 0.46857 actions
listed per student.

79

5.5.2: List any electricity conservation actions you plan to perform regularly

5.13: Frequency of codes for intention to perform electricity conservation skills

Intention to Perform Electricity Conservation Skills
Conserve Water
No Intention
Turn Off Electronics When Not In Use
Turn Off Lights
Unplug Electronics
Use Electronics Less
Use Natural Light
Watch Less TV
Other
Did Not Answer

Pre

0
19
30
64
18
19
11
13
2
40

Post

18
13
21
90
49
14
15
10
6
16

The results of the intention to perform electricity conservation actions question
were also very similar to the results regarding the knowledge of skills. The most frequent
action was turn off lights on both pre and post-participation surveys, with the number of
students listing this action increasing by 14.8%. The largest shift was students more
frequently listing actions coded as unplug electronics rather than turn off electronics,
which was expected given a similar shift in the question regarding the knowledge of
actions. This points to students developing a recognition of what they understand to be
either a more effective action to conserve electricity, or one that they are not currently
performing.
Seven students who expressed intention to perform at least one action preparticipation did not answer the question post-participation, two originally expressed no
intention, and three did not answer on either. Six students who originally expressed
intention to perform at least one behavior expressed no intention post-participation.
Three of the specific coded segments were simply “no”, or “none”, two of them were “I

80

don't know” despite both having listed action in the question regarding knowledge of
electricity conservation skills, and one responded “I perform daily actions” but did not
list any actions in the knowledge of electricity conservation skills.
There was, again, a significant increase from pre to post-participation in the
number of actions listed per student (t(175), p<0.0001) with a mean increase of 0.37714
actions listed.

5.6: Locus of Control
The following questions were designed to gauge the locus of control identified in
students regarding water and electricity conservation behaviors and actions.
5.6.1: Are you performing all the water and electricity conservation activities
you are aware of?
Code
Yes
No
I don't know
Did not answer

Pre

70
66
9
31

Post

87
67
6
16

Table 5.14: Frequencies of main codes for question 10

15 students who originally did not answer the question changed to a yes response
post-participation, five who answered I don't know changed to yes, and 19 no responses
changed to yes. One student who originally answered yes changed to I don't know, five
did not answer on the post-participation survey, and 16 changed their answer from yes to
no from pre to post-participation.

81

This question displayed the highest number of students that changed from a
positive endorsement of conservation behavior to a negative one. Examining the coded
segments of the students who changed their answer to no from something different, it was
most common for them to not reflect a specific reason behind not performing all the
actions they were aware of, no reason given was coded for 29.4% (5 students) of
responses. The next most common codes identified in the reasoning were forget and
comfort, each appearing on 23.5% (4 students) of responses. Two students, or 11.8%,
gave a reason coded as just learned of them, time and 'family doesn't' were identified in
5.9% (one student) each.

Table 5.15: Frequencies of sub-codes for 'no' responses to question 10

Sub-Codes – 'No' Responses
Comfort
Family Doesn't
Forget
I Don't Care
Just Learned About Them
Time
Too Young
No Reason Given

Pre (n=66)
20 (30.3%)
3 (4.54%)
30 (45.5%)
2 (3.03%)
0 (0%)
6 (9.10%)
1 (1.52%)
7 (10.6%)

Post (n=67)
18 (26.9%)
3 (4.48%)
21 (31.3%)
2 (2.99%)
6 (9.09%)
6 (7.46%)
0 (0.0%)
14 (20.9%)

The most surprising result of this question is the number of students who
originally answered they were performing these actions, but answered they were not
performing them post-participation. Most of these students did not give a specific reason
for why they were not performing these actions so it is difficult to pinpoint the reason
their responses may have changed. The most obvious reason would be that the program
exposed them to a variety of conservation actions they had not considered before, and
were therefore not performing them. It is possible that follow up questioning with these
specific students might reveal the reasons underlying this change.

82

Graph 5.2: Responses for question 10 using select Importance/Benefit combinations

The earlier heat map demonstrating the distribution of the importance of
conservation by the benefits perceived was used to examine how the most frequently
occurring combinations of responses related to self-reported behavior. The results show
that students who recognize the importance of conservation being scarcity or future use
and the benefit of future use responded that they are performing all the conservation
actions they are aware of more often than the general sample and students who displayed
other combinations of responses. Even though future use was identified to be temporally
distinct from scarcity, students could be more likely to perform conservation behaviors
based on a future direct personal benefit as opposed to a more altruistic benefit perceived
in the present. This could also be true of the lower occurrence of behavior found in
students who answered with the combination of economic/economic. If students are not
directly responsible for the economic cost associated with water use, they only indirectly
benefit by helping their family save money. The frequency of the forget code identified
for why students who answered with a combination of scarcity/more available and

83

economic/economic are not performing these behaviors points to students being less
likely to habituate these behaviors into their everyday lives if the benefit perceived is
indirect, or altruistic in nature.

Locus of Control
Internal
External
Group
Did Not Answer

Pre

99
43
3
31

Post

105
54
1
16

Table 5.16: Locus of control for question 10

The locus of control identified had the opposite of the desired effect for this
question; the increase in external locus of control was greater than the increase in
internal. External locus of control means that students feel their ability to perform these
actions, or the impact they have, is beyond their control. The increase in the number of
students that reflect external LOC leads to the conclusion that students need to be
reinforced with the idea that these behaviors are actions they can perform regardless of
outside influence.
When comparing the responses from students who changed their response to yes
from something else with the responses from the general sample on the other questions,
there were some notable discrepancies. When comparing responses to the question 'Do
you benefit from conserving water?' students who changed their answer to yes more
frequently identified the code of future use when compared to the general sample (34.2%
to 22.4%). These students also identified an internal locus of control for the following
question regarding the impact of their actions when compared to the general sample

84

(81.6% to 68.2%). Comparing these students' responses with the general sample
regarding intention to perform water conservation actions, the action of unplug
electronics appeared more frequently (39.5% to 26.1%). Students that changed their
answer to yes from another response for this question also more frequently listed their
favorite part of the WET Center as the water use calculator than the general sample
(42.1% to 27.3%).
5.6.2: Will your actions to conserve water and electricity have an impact?
Code
Yes
No
I don't know
Did not answer

Pre

113
17
13
33

Post

147
14
7
8

Table 5.17: Frequencies of main codes for question 11

28 students who did not answer the question pre-participation answered yes post.
All of these students identified an internal locus of control (LOC) except four students
that identified a group LOC. The coded segments for these four students read, “if
everyone does it it will”, “only a small impact unless everyone else does it”, or a
similarly worded response. Nine students who originally answered I don't know changed
their answer to yes, and all but one identified an internal LOC, that student identified a
group LOC stating, “if my mom and sister do as well.” Seven students changed their no
response pre-participation to a yes response post with all students identifying an internal
LOC except for one that identified group. That one student's response was, “not a big
one unless everyone starts”. Pre-participation these students most often answered their
actions would not have an impact because they were not performing them due to laziness

85

or forgetfulness. Post-participation, when they changed their answer to yes, the coded
segments of their responses gave reasons such as, “even if I am one person, I can still
have an impact”, and, “yes, I am using less water and electricity so bills will go down.”

Table 5.18: Frequencies of sub-codes for 'yes' responses to question 11

Sub-Codes – 'Yes' Responses
Economic Impact
Ecosystem Impact
Influence Others to Conserve
More Available for Use
Survival
No Impact Stated

Pre (n=113) Post (n=147)
21 (18.6%) 26 (17.7%)
14 (12.4%) 18 (12.2%)
3 (2.65%) 16 (10.9%)
41 (36.3%) 47 (32.0%)
1 (0.88%) 0 (0.0%)
39 (34.5%) 51 (34.7%)

There were nine students who originally answered yes on the pre-participation
survey that changed their answer to a different response post-participation. Three of
these students changed their answer to no and none gave any specific reason their actions
would not have an impact. Of these three, one originally stated they would waste less
water and two did not give any specific impact, though one stated, “a very tiny impact,
but still an impact”. One student who changed identified a group LOC on both surveys
stating, “yes, if everyone else does”, pre and, “no because there are 7 billion people on
the earth”, post-participation. Five students did not answer and one did not know.
44 students changed their answer to yes from pre to post-participation, with the
specific impacts stated appearing at the same frequency as the general sample of 'yes'
responses. 38 of these students identified internal, and six identified a group LOC.
Examining how these students responded to other questions revealed that the students
who changed their answer to yes more often gave future use as a benefit of water
conservation than the general sample of yes responses for question two (31.8% against

86

22.4%) and less likely to list an economic benefit (22.7% against 40.4%), the other
frequencies remained constant. For the question, 'Do you benefit from conserving
electricity?', these students less often identified an economic benefit when compared to
the general sample (27.7% to 50%), and more often did not list any specific benefit
(22.2% to 4.5%).

Table 5.19: Locus of control for question 11

Locus of Control
Internal
External
Group
Did Not Answer

Pre

77
24
42
33

Post

120
17
31
8

Most students that identified an internal LOC post-participation and not pre had
originally answered I don't know, or did not answer at all. 23 students who originally
identified a group LOC identified internal, 14 students who identified an external LOC
changed to identify internal, students did not necessarily change their yes/no response,
but the coded segment read as such to recognize that their LOC had changed. Ten
students who initially identified an internal LOC identified a group LOC postparticipation, four changed to identify external, and four did not answer.

5.7 Multivariate Regression

Table 5.20: Results of multivariate regression

87

The results of the multivariate regression showed the whole model was not a good
predictor of self-reported behavior (n=176, R2= 0.0256). It also demonstrated that none
of the combinations of variables, increases in environmental attitude, or the school the
students attend had any kind of significant effect on self-reported behavior. This may be
an indication that the Drops and Watts program is not effective at encouraging actual
behavioral change and/or the combinations of variables used are not actually good
predictors of environmentally friendly behavior in general.

88

Chapter 6 Chapter 6: Discussion
This chapter discusses the results of the research and how they relate to the WET
Center program. Results of the surveys are compared to identify which variables showed
the largest differences after participation in the Drops and Watts program, and
connections are drawn between these changes and the specific parts of the program that
likely influenced them. The changes in sub-codes are examined and an attempt is made
to identify the underlying reasons for these changes to understand the most effective
ways the program may have influenced the variables in question. Results are also
compared to the existing body of literature regarding the variables influential to
environmentally friendly behavior (EFB) and how they are influenced by environmental
education (EE), though studies that focus on the same age group, specific behavior, and
similar educational program are not widely available. The chapter is divided into
sections of the variables that were studied.

6.1: Environmental Attitude
As measured by the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) adapted for use with
children of a similar age group (Manoli, Johnson, & Dunlap, 2007), environmental
attitude was raised by 2.39 standard deviations from pre to post-participation. The
increase in the overall score of the test was only 0.882 of a possible 70 points and the pvalue of 0.0178 was very close to the alpha of 0.05 so the test was broken down into the
three areas it is designed to measure.

89

The most interesting result from the three individual factors is that only one
showed an increase greater than that of the composite, that being eco-crisis with an
increase equal to 3.62 standard deviations. There are four statements on the NEP
associated with this factor:


There are too many (or almost too many) people on earth



When people mess with nature, it has bad results



People are treating nature badly



If things don't change, we will have a big disaster in the environment soon
The increase of this factor relative to the increase in the other two, suggests that

the program is not necessarily effective at influencing overall environmental attitude but
it is effective at increasing students' recognition of the seriousness and urgency posed by
current environmental issues. In the case of the Drops and Watts program, this
recognition likely comes from the portions that educate the students as to how much
water is currently demanded by human activities compared to the relative availability of
water as a resource. There is also an emphasis in the classroom presentation on
accessibility to potable water and the demands of a growing population on water
resources, both of which relate to this factor of the NEP. This connection between
curriculum and the shift in environmental attitude is further corroborated by the results of
the knowledge of issues and locus of control questions that reveal 'scarcity' and 'future
use' as the codes most often identified in the responses of the students who changed their
answers between pre and post-participation. Despite the fact that the results of the
regression demonstrated this increase does not have a significant effect on self-reported

90

behavior, it is still a positive outcome of the Drops and Watts program. The most
important thing the regression demonstrated was this increase was not sufficient to
influence self-reported behavior, further study is needed to observe if behavior is more
effectively influenced by increases in other areas of the NEP, rather than just the ecocrisis portion.
Examining the results of the other two factors was interesting, though they both
showed a smaller increase than was observed in the composite score. The factor of
human exemptionalism actually showed a decrease in the mean scores from pre to postparticipation. The statements related to this factor on the NEP are:


People are clever enough to keep from ruining the earth



Nature is strong enough to handle the bad effects of our modern lifestyle



People will someday know enough about how nature works to be able to control it
There is an emphasis in the Drops and Watts program on offering a positive,

solutions based outlook to current environmental issues, as well as an attempt to
empower students with the belief that they can make a difference (A. Smith, personal
communication, February 13, 2015). These elements of the program likely influenced
the students to believe that humans can overcome the challenges presented by
environmental issues. This is supported by the results of questions relating to locus of
control, where the number of students who recognized an impact of their actions
increased by 19.3%.

91

Instead of pointing to the decrease in this factor as a less favorable attitude toward
the environment, it could be seen as an endorsement of the value of human ingenuity in
the face of potentially disastrous problems. If this decrease was influenced by a
recognition of individual and/or human capability, it could mean that this factor of the
NEP is not an accurate indicator of environmental attitude with relation to conservation
behavior. The questions do not specify reasons for confidence in human exemptionalism
and it could be argued that a belief in human ability to deal with current environmental
issues can be seen as endorsing a pro-environmental attitude. The reasoning behind this
being these students are the next generation of problem solvers and will need to be
coming up with new, innovative solutions in order to mitigate past and continued effects
of human activity on the environment so a belief in their ability to do so will be a
necessity. This has been shown to be an important factor of successful environmental
education because it avoids promoting a 'psychology of despair' (Zufiaurre, Albertin, &
Belletich, 2014) The factor is meant to measure if humans feel they are exempt or
superior to the rest of nature in some way (Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig, & Jones, 2000) but
the wording of specific questions could also be measuring how capable students feel
when dealing with environmental issues.

6.2: Knowledge of Issues
Though responses from students who developed a recognition of the importance
of water conservation yielded other codes at a higher frequency compared to students
who already demonstrated this recognition, the code identified most often in their
responses was still scarcity. This code was included as at least one reason for the
importance of conservation on almost half (48.8%) of the student responses and from

92

34.8% of students who showed an increase in this knowledge. This lends credibility to
the earlier assertion that students become more sensitized to environmental problems as
demonstrated by a large increase in support of the eco-crisis factor of the NEP. When
examined in light of results on other questions, this increased knowledge will only result
in actual behavioral change if other pre-requisites are met. If the students view the issues
on a more global scale, or fail to draw the connection between the importance of
conservation and their own perceived benefits and impacts, it is likely that this increase in
knowledge will not result any kind of behavioral change (Fernandez-Juricic, 2000). Even
if the students do recognize a benefit from their actions the benefits need to be related
directly to the individual, rather than altruistic in nature.
Regarding the relationship between water and electricity use, one possible reason
for the unexpected result regarding the frequency of the cleaning and treatment of water
sub-code is the wording of the question. Structuring the question as, 'Does your
electricity use affect water consumption?', rather than something that does not emphasize
the use of one resource over another such as, 'Do your water and electricity use affect one
another?' may have led to misunderstanding. The students may still have an increased
awareness of how increased water use would increase electricity consumption related to
the cleaning and treatment of water, but it is not revealed due to the wording of the
question. This may also explain one student whose response was originally I don't know
and changed to no. The coded segment read, “electricity use does not affect water use,
but using water will make the electricity bill go up”, suggesting that if the question was
worded differently, the response may have been different.

93

The students who developed a recognition of this connection did reveal a
relationship to other questions, one was regarding their actions having an impact.
Students who developed knowledge of the electricity/water connection recognized their
actions would have an impact at a higher rate relative to the general sample. Developing
this connection in knowledge allows them to recognize a greater impact to their
conservation actions (Athman & Monroe, 2001). Not only were students more likely to
recognize an impact of their actions, but the recognition of this connection also led to a
number of sub-codes being identified post-participation that were not present preparticipation. Codes on questions relating to the importance of conservation, the benefits
perceived, the skills that can be performed, and the impacts of actions all revealed a subcode associated with the water/energy connection. In the case of the benefits perceived
from conserving electricity, conserving water was the benefit most often identified in
responses of students whose answers changed to recognize a benefit post-participation.
This follows the Value-Belief-Norm theory that knowledge leads individuals recognize
the impacts of their actions and form perceptions as to how they can reduce any negative
impacts (Stern, 2000). It also demonstrates that an increase in knowledge can inform a
variety of the other observed variables, though it was not demonstrated by the present
research that these effects had any influence over actually performing behavior.

6.3: Personal Investment
Looking at how students viewed water conservation did not show a large increase
in the number of students who felt they would benefit by conserving water. Most
students (73.9%) already recognized a benefit before participating in the field trip. This

94

result is comparable to question two regarding the importance of conservation when
comparing the differences in responses from pre to post-participation.
There were changes in the sub-codes most often identified in responses, pointing
to an influence in the kinds of benefits perceived. The drop in frequency of future use
appearing in answers may point to students developing a more immediate benefit from
conservation. A direct connection to the learner's everyday life has been shown to be an
effective way to influence behavior (Athman & Monroe, 2001), however, the
combination of scarcity and future use did more often result in students reporting they
were performing conservation actions. It could be that an immediate benefit is not
necessary as long as the students recognize they will directly benefit from their actions at
some point in time. When looked at in the context of graph 5.2, the drop in future use
could be seen as a negative effect if the newly perceived benefit is more altruistic in
nature rather than offering a direct personal benefit.
The increase in an economic benefit perceived should be more influential in
motivating the students to perform conservation behaviors according to previous research
identifying economic motivations as a primary influence on conservation behaviors
(McKenzie-Mohr, Nemiroff, Beers, & Desmarais, 1995). This, however, would need to
be preceded by students recognizing that water conservation in general is an economic
issue and recognizing that their actions will have an economic impact (Stern, 2000). The
results of this study indicate they primarily view the importance of water conservation as
relating to scarcity rather than economics. The results of graph 5.2 refute prior research
that economics serve as a primary motivator for conservation behaviors as it relates to
this particular age group. This could be due to the lack of a direct personal benefit,

95

similar to the results found in the students who answered scarcity/more available. The
assumption was made that these students are not primarily responsible for the economic
burden associated with water use, so the benefit they perceive is realized more by their
parents than themselves. When the benefit perceived is altruistic, or serves to primarily
benefit someone else, students appear less likely to habituate and perform that behavior,
even if they recognize this as a benefit.
Comparable results were found regarding the benefits perceived from conserving
electricity. The most telling result was found in the frequencies of the sub-codes,
specifically, the appearance and prominence of the conserving water code, further
reinforcing that students are able to draw connections between water and electricity use.
This is supported by the fact that students who changed their response to recognize a
benefit identified the most important thing they learned at the WET Center as being the
connection between water and electricity. Despite the prominence of this code, an
economic benefit was still the most commonly perceived among students overall.
Previous research has shown the importance of economic motivators to resource
conservation (McKenzie-Mohr et al., 1995), so the high frequency of economic benefits
recognized, and the strong connections made between water and electricity use, could
lead to an increased awareness of behaviors that can be performed to conserve resources
and save money. The appearance of new skills on subsequent questions from pre to postparticipation supports that this connection does increase the kinds of skills students are
aware of. The results of the current study indicate that, while this recognition may lead to
an increased awareness of actions, those actions will not be habituated by students based
on an economic motivator.

96

The small change in frequency of an economic benefit perceived from electricity
conservation compared to the large change in frequency for this same benefit with regard
to water conservation is also interesting. Students are more likely to recognize they save
money on both water and electricity when they conserve water but it would not appear
that this connection carries over to conserving electricity. There is a strong emphasis in
the program regarding how much electricity is used in connection to water use, but the
amount of water used when generating electricity is presented as more of a cycle. Water
is heated into steam and then cooled back into water and used again. In the classroom
presentation power plants are shown to be located near large bodies of water and the
ways water is recycled after being used in the plant are demonstrated. This is one
possible explanation for why students perceive water use as having a higher economic
benefit than electricity use, since they have an understanding that it is actually using both
resources, whereas the water used in electricity production gets recycled. Regardless of
why this discrepancy occurred, it would be in the interest of the WET Center to try and
encourage students to recognize an alternate benefit from conservation that is more
closely aligned with a direct benefit and the overall perceived importance of conservation
in general.

6.4: Knowledge of Skills
Responses on the post-participation survey less frequently identified conservative
use and other codes with regard to the actions they can take. Since these codes are more
general in nature and do not often result in a large reduction in use, this points to a more
concentrated and effective knowledge of skills being developed after participating in the
Drops and Watts program. Most students already are aware of some kind of water saving

97

actions, but these small shifts in emphasis reveal a more refined set of skills being
developed. This is also supported by the decrease in the number of students who did not
answer or who did not identify any strategies they are aware of. These results are similar
to other research that EE can help to refine the kinds of actions students are aware of,
even if it does not increase the overall frequency of awareness (Zint, Kraemer, Northway,
& Lim, 2002).
Also supporting the notion that students' knowledge of skills became more
effective is the emergence of additional codes in the post-participation survey. The two
additional codes of conserve electricity and food choices were not often revealed in
answers, but their emergence does show students are making more connections regarding
how water relates to other aspects of life. Since the food choices code was not often
displayed, it does not seem that students are developing a sufficient knowledge of this
skill to effectively carry it out, which is corroborated by the low frequency of this action
revealed in the behavioral intention question. This is supported by the coded segments
for food choices being general rather than specific for most responses such as, “don't eat
food that takes more water”, or “don't waste food”, and not often giving specific foods or
kinds of food. Students seem to really relate to the portion of the classroom presentation
that tells how much water is used for a double cheeseburger (observation February 13,
26-27, 2015 March 12-13, 2015), but not many other foods are identified as being water
intensive. Local and organic options are mentioned but not emphasized as ways to be
more conscious regarding the water footprint of food but specific foods are not identified
except in a chart next to one of the exhibits that lists some common foods and their water
footprint. The segments related to conserve electricity reveal a more detailed knowledge

98

of actions as they list specific actions to conserve electricity with only five segments
being a general response. This, coupled with the increase in the knowledge of the
connection between water and electricity, may explain why more students included this
as at least one action they could take.
It was also observed that students more often listed multiple actions they were
aware of post-participation when compared to their responses pre-participation. The
significant result of the matched pairs test shows that students are becoming aware of
more actions they can personally perform, even if there is not a wider variety
demonstrated in the general sample. It could be that this recognition is temporary and a
result of recent exposure to the material. The lack of a successful retention test prohibits
this comparison from being made. The increase in number of actions was also very small
showing a mean increase of only 0.366 more actions being listed per student. While
statistically significant, this may not point to the program being extremely effective at
influencing this variable. Comparison with other evaluations using this same measure
was not able to be performed due to the specificity of the actions and program being
studied.
Regarding electricity conservation skills, one code, turn off lights was listed as at
least one of the actions on the majority of student responses both pre and postparticipation, with very little change in frequency between the two. There was change
observed in the next most frequently revealed code with students more frequently listing
actions coded as unplug electronics rather than turn off electronics when not in use. This
could possibly be explained by various different factors. The first being most obviously
that less students were aware that items still use electricity when plugged in. This is

99

something that was brought up by a student in every classroom presentation observed,
and always received some further explanation by the teacher, referring to these items as
'energy vampires' and explaining that they still draw power even if not in use
(observation February 13, 26-27, 2015 March 12-13, 2015). It is also possible that more
often, students are already turning off electronics while they are not using them, so while
it may be a way to conserve electricity, it was not very applicable to most students'
everyday lives. Further questioning could reveal if this is indeed the case.
The code of conserving water did emerge on the post-participation surveys and
did not appear pre-participation. This is expected, especially in light of the results of the
knowledge of water conservation skills. Students are aware of this connection and
recognized specific water saving actions they could perform that would also have an
effect on electricity consumption. This seems to be a reoccurring theme, that the
connection between water and electricity use forms the basis for the observed increases in
the other variables and confirms the results from other studies that knowledge is a
necessary precursor to the recognition of effective action (Cary, 2008; Hungerford &
Volk, 1990; Stern, 2000).
There was, again, a significant increase in the number of actions listed per student
between pre and post-participation surveys. The increase was similar to that observed in
the knowledge of water conservation skills, an average of 0.291 more actions listed per
student. The small increase gives pause as to how to interpret this effect. It could point
to an overall increase in the knowledge of the variety of skills that can be performed but
could also be a short term artifact of the information being fresh in the minds of students.
Long term study would reveal if this increase remains permanent or not.

100

6.5: Behavioral Intention
Perhaps the most telling result from this question is the discrepancy between
students that are aware of actions and those that intend to perform them. For almost
every action listed on the knowledge of water conservation skills question, fewer students
showed intention to perform than were aware of the action. There were only three
students who did not claim to be aware of any skills they could perform to conserve
water, however, 13 students answered they had no intention to perform any actions. The
segments for the students with no intention mostly just read 'none', or 'I don't plan to', and
did not reveal and specific reasoning for not performing the actions. Reasoning for this
lack of intention is explored further in the question measuring locus of control and what
is preventing students from performing all the actions they are aware of. Since these
students do not intend to perform any actions, it can be assumed that they are not simply
forgetting to do so, as was the most commonly revealed code for why students are not
performing water conservation actions they are aware of. The next most commonly
identified code was comfort, most often indicating that the students enjoyed taking long
showers and did not want to give this up. If this is the case it would mean the overall
benefits perceived by students are not enough to get them to sacrifice their own comfort
in order to gain these benefits.
There was, again, a statistically significant increase in the number of actions listed
per student from pre to post-participation, indicating students intended to perform more
actions, and a wider variety of them, after participation in the program. This increase in
number of actions per student was higher when compared to the increase in number of
actions per student on the knowledge of water conservation skills question. The

101

significance, as well as the comparatively larger increase in actions listed per student
between the knowledge and intention questions, would indicate that there is a genuine
increase in the number of conservation actions students intend to perform, but only in
those who previously demonstrated intention. Retention or follow up tests would be able
to confirm this result.
There was a similar discrepancy observed in the number of students who are
aware of actions and the number who actually intend to perform them. For every action
listed except turn off electronics there were less students who intended to perform the
behavior than were aware of it. For the turn off electronics code, there were 21 students
who intended to perform that behavior, yet only 20 indicated they were aware of it. This
discrepancy supports the claim that this action may be something they are already
performing or have internalized as habit. Students will list the actions they have just
become aware of through the program on the question regarding knowledge of skills, but
when it comes to intention, they list the behavior they are already performing out of
habit. The difference in awareness and intention means a more focused approach to
influence students to perform these actions, or incorporate them into their daily routines,
may be the most effective way to increase behavioral intention. As it stands, it does not
appear that the program has a large influence on this variable in students who did not
previously show intention, which could be a further indication of the disconnect between
the perceived importance of conservation and the direct personal benefits students feel
they gain from their behaviors.
As was the case with the previous questions, there was a statistically significant
difference in the number of actions listed per student from pre to post-participation.

102

Despite the statistical significance, the mean increase in number of actions was only
0.377 more actions listed per students. This cannot be seen as a definitive endorsement
that the program is influencing behavioral intention without a sufficient retention test to
verify that the increase is not a temporary effect of just having participated in the
program.

6.6: Locus of Control (LOC)
There was not a large shift in the locus of control identified for why students are
not performing the water and energy saving actions they are aware of. There are a few
possible reasons for the lack of change in this response. The first being the surveys are
administered too closely to one another to accurately reflect how students may change the
actions they are performing between pre and post-participation. Since the survey is
administered only one day past participation in the program, students may not have had
ample opportunity to incorporate new behaviors into their daily routine. This is
supported by the primary reason behind students not performing these actions being that
they forget to do so. If students do indeed begin to incorporate some of these actions into
their daily routines, it is possible that this would be identified more accurately in a
retention survey rather than the post-participation survey.
Since the majority of the responses coded as external also revealed the code of
forget regarding the reason they are not able to perform the actions, it can be determined
that these students lack a way of habituating these actions into their daily routine.
Previous research indicates that forgetfulness regarding behavior often results from
individuals not being able to form a strong enough connection between the action they

103

are performing, the benefit it offers them, and the way that benefit is connected to the
larger issue (Ajzen, 1991; Stern, 2000). This is reinforced through the result that
students perceive the most important reason to conserve water as being the issue of
scarcity, but perceive their own benefit from conservation as being economic. If the
direct connection between why conservation is important and the individual benefit
gained by conservation is not made, students are less likely to habituate conservation
action and will forget to perform them, even if they feel it is the 'right' thing to do
(Athman & Monroe, 2001). The same applies to the more altruistic benefits perceived by
students. Graph 5.2 indicates altruistic benefits are not only less often performed, but
they are not performed based on the students forgetting to do so. Despite the fact that the
responses would seemingly directly connect the benefit perceived to the overall
importance, the nature of the benefit as an altruistic one appears to be responsible for the
lack of habituation of these behaviors. Whereas when a student perceives a personal
benefit that occurs at a later point in time and can connect it to the immediate importance
of conservation, they are less likely to forget to perform the behavior.
The minor changes in overall response rate also reinforce the theory presented by
Hungerford and Volk that education does not have a direct impact on LOC, but rather
encourages students to perform certain actions and their success in performing these
actions will reinforce an internal LOC (Hungerford & Volk, 1990). This is supported by
the relationship observed between the students who changed their answer to yes on this
question and how they responded to the following question relating to the impact of their
actions. These students more often identified an internal locus of control for the
following question than the general sample, which could mean they became aware of the

104

impact their actions would have and were therefore more likely to answer that they were
performing them. It could also mean they began to perform conservation actions and
were therefore more likely to recognize the impact these actions have. Regardless of
which way this relationship works, it lends support to the assertion that only through
actually performing the actions in question can an internal locus of control be reinforced.
The results of the next question regarding the impact of students' actions were
determined to be inconclusive regarding the changes observed from pre to postparticipation. There was a large increase in the number of students who felt their actions
would have an impact, but these responses primarily came from students who did not
answer the question on the pre-participation survey. While this may indicate that
participating in the program does have an effect on perceiving impacts as a result of
actions, the lack of pre-participation answers prevented making conclusions as to how or
why these changes occurred. Part of the reason for the large lack of responses to this
question initially may be that students did not understand what the question was asking.
The one change observed is the shift from group to internal locus of control.
While the students may not have answered differently as to whether or not their actions
will have an impact, there was a change in the kind of locus of control identified in their
responses. This shift indicates students are more likely to realize the individual impacts
conservation actions can have rather than believing these impacts are dependent on others
doing the same. The coded segments lend credibility to this indication. The specific
codes for students that shifted from group to internal originally read similar to, 'only if
other people do as well' but changed to read similar to, 'yes, even the smallest impact
makes a difference'. This points to students recognizing the impacts of their own

105

individual actions. Even if the program does not change the minds of students who feel
their actions will not have any impact at all, it does have the potential to emphasize
individual rather than group actions. Previous research identifies an individual locus of
control as being more likely to lead to changes in behavior when compared to group LOC
(Smith-Sebasto, 1995), so while this change may have been minimal, it is a desirable
outcome of the program.
One interesting result was the comparison of how students who changed their
answer to recognize an impact from their actions perceived the benefits they derive from
water and electricity conservation. These students were less likely to recognize an
economic benefit from conserving water and electricity and, in the case of water
conservation, more likely to recognize future use as a benefit. If students who do not
make the direct connection between the importance of conservation and their perceived
direct benefits are less likely to habituate conservation behaviors, this result could mean
students whose responses on this question were influenced by the program will be more
likely to habituate these behaviors into their everyday lives. The part of the program that
would have the most influence on students recognizing this impact would be the
individual water use areas, such as the water calculator. The exhibit gives students an
interactive and visual representation of water usage that in turn, allows them to
conceptualize the amount of water they can save through their own actions. Retention
tests and observation of actual behavior would lend credibility to this assertion.

6.7: Multivariate Regression

106

The return rate on the in home water audit was extremely low so it was
determined that meaningful conclusions could not be drawn regarding what specific
variables are most influential for actual behavior from such a small sample of returned
audits. This lack of return rate could point to a variety of different conclusions. It is
possible that the lack of return is a result of the program being ineffective at influencing
students to actually engage in any kind of meaningful conservation behavior. It could
also mean that students did not connect the water audit to a meaningful conservation
behavior as it is more of a record of use rather than a specific behavior identified as
having an impact by the students themselves. Based on feedback from teachers, it is also
possible the attention span of an elementary school student had expired with regard to the
subject of water conservation. While this may point to a lack of desire to engage in
conservation, it does not necessarily mean that students are not performing the
conservation actions they are aware of.
The results from the multivariate regression using self-reported behavior were not
statistically significant, and demonstrate that none of the combinations of variables used
are influential in determining self-reported behavior. The increases in environmental
attitude and school the student attends did not show influence either. There are several
way to interpret this result. The first would be the Drops and Watts program did not
make sufficient connections between the variables in order to influence student behavior.
Making direct connections between the variables observed was not enough to influence
the self-reported behavior of students, so there must be some other factor that is
preventing them from doing so. This result could lend credibility to the earlier assertion
that the variables must not only be directly connected to one another, but must also be

107

directly linked to the individual, rather than a larger issue that may or may not have a
direct connection to their everyday lives.
It could also be that the measure of self-reported behavior is not a strong enough
indicator of actual behavior. There is always response bias present when you rely on
subjects to answer truthfully and an observed behavior would be the most accurate
indicator but was unfortunately unavailable. In light of the results of the regression
analysis, the low response rate from the in home water audit may confirm that the
program is not having a substantial influence on actual behavior.

108

Chapter 7 Chapter 7: Conclusion
7.1: Summary
Exposure to the Drops and Watts program increased student knowledge regarding
the connection between water and electricity use which led to an increase in the
conservation actions students were aware of. This influenced the kinds of benefits
students recognized as a result of their behavior. Students gained a better understanding
of the variety of effective behaviors they could perform and were also able to better
recognize their individual ability to have an impact. The intention to perform specific
behaviors did not increase among students who, before participating in the program, did
not already intend to perform conservation actions, nor were students more likely to
report they were performing all the actions they are aware of. In fact, the opposite was
true, that students were more likely to report they were not performing these actions after
participation.
Students appeared to become more sensitized to global resource availability issues
and recognized these larger issues to be the most important with regard to conservation.
The disconnect observed between the more localized impacts of their conservation
actions and what they perceive to be the most important reasons to conserve creates a
barrier to them performing and habituating these conservation actions in their everyday
lives (Athman & Monroe, 2001; Fernandez-Juricic, 2000). Students recognized an
economic benefit of their actions, which is a common motivator for performing
conservation behavior (McKenzie-Mohr, Nemiroff, Beers, & Desmarais, 1995), but in
this case, economic motivation was insufficient since it provides only an indirect benefit

109

to the students. Since there is not recognition of an immediate economic concern with
regard to the overall issue of conservation and the students are not directly economically
responsible for their resource consumption, this perceived benefit is not substantial
enough to overcome barriers to conservation behavior, such as personal comfort.
Due to the lack of a retention test, the results observed in the post-participation
survey are subject to change in the students; their answers may change over a period of
months when the material is not as recent or emphasized in their lives. The results may
not give a good indication of how frequently students should be exposed to the material
for it to be retained effectively, but prior research has shown that repeated exposure over
a long term period will be the most effective way of encouraging changes in conservation
behavior (Marcus, 2012). Despite the limitations of the research, it does provide valuable
information for both the specific program studied, and general educational programs with
the goal of influencing behavior.
The results of this research do indicate that the program does have some level of
influence over a number of variables that are thought to be influential to behavior. What
they also demonstrate is the effect of the Drops and Watts program is not sufficient on its
own to show a substantial change in actually performing behavior. While this result does
not mean that these variables are not influential to behavior, it does indicate there are
further barriers to influencing behavior in the observed population than just improving
environmental attitude and making direct connections between the variables observed.
Further testing would be able to shed some light on what barriers still exist, or how the
WET Center might be able to improve the influence it has over these traits.

110

7.2: Conclusions for the Drops and Watts Program
One barrier to conservation behavior, as determined by this research, was the lack
of connection between the overall importance of conservation and the direct benefits
perceived by students preventing the habituation of behavior. The results demonstrate it
is not enough for the benefits to be connected to the overall issue, but they must provide a
direct benefit to the individual, rather than an altruistic benefit, if the behavior is to be
successfully habituated. Using this as a starting point, the WET Center could modify the
emphasis of the Drops and Watts program. Student perception of water scarcity as a
global issue was reinforced through the program, though the direct benefit the students
perceived to themselves was only realized at a later point in time. It was this benefit that
appeared the most influential to the students’ self-reported behavior. An attempt could be
made to connect the issue of water scarcity with the everyday lives of the students by
emphasizing how our water sources get replenished and the kinds of dangers facing this
natural cycle, rather than emphasizing the lack of access to water in foreign countries or
the overall percentage of potable water on the planet. This could shift the most commonly
perceived benefits in the direction of future use. If there is not an immediate threat to the
region as a result of water scarcity, presenting the overall importance of conservation
could be modified to reflect more of an economic risk to the students themselves. The
program mentions how demand will increase with population but supplies are dwindling
due to climate change, which will create a larger economic burden in the future. If the
program places an emphasis on the personal economic responsibility students will face in
the future, this might be an effective way to encourage habituation of behavior, similar to
the future use benefit.

111

With regard to the conservation actions students are aware of, the WET Center
could make a targeted effort to identify the most effective and desirable actions and place
primary emphasis on those. Also, since students become aware of a variety of actions that
can indirectly affect consumption, such as food choices, an effort should be made to
define the most effective actions within those broad categories. Students could be made
aware of specific foods that are more water intense than others, how packaging of food
affects the amount of water used to make it, and any other specifics regarding food
choices that might be effective. Emphasizing that local and organic foods contain a
smaller water footprint might be effective, but these types of foods are also restricted by
other barriers that might prevent purchasing. In terms of embodied water costs associated
with other manufactured goods, such as clothes, an emphasis on cradle to cradle use and
reuse may help to identify other actions students can take that will lead to indirect
conservation of resources, and could also reveal an economic benefit of their own.
The green building portion of the tour, while not directly emphasizing
conservation actions, does plant the seeds for future action by students. Students did gain
an understanding and interest in green building and recycled products that can serve to
influence their behaviors later in life when they are making decisions regarding what kind
of built environment they want to live and work in. Identifying students that have
developed an interest in green building and recycled materials as a result of participation
and offering them volunteer positions could prove useful. These students could share
their experiences with future participants and hopefully cultivate what could be a long
term interest in conservation strategies and pro-environmental behavior.

112

The potential to use the data gathered in this study to provide a template for future
evaluations also exists. While the time and money required to continually administer and
evaluate open ended surveys may not exist for the WET Center, the results could be used
to create a general template for a more closed response survey that would specifically
benefit the Drops and Watts program. Using the kinds of benefits, behaviors, and
impacts identified by students to create a short form survey using multiple choice, Likert
type, or other responses could prove useful in studying how any modifications made to
the program affect its influence on these variables. These kinds of evaluations could be
an ongoing part of the WET Center’s efforts and the potential exists for a long-term study
to be conducted to better evaluate the continued effects of participation.

7.3: Generalized Conclusions
The results of this study indicate an expanded knowledge of the issues
surrounding conservation appears to be a precursor for the formation and reinforcement
of the benefits, skills, and impacts perceived by individuals. Attitude change is related to
the level of knowledge possessed about an issue and the expectation of success must also
be connected to this knowledge for effective behaviors to be carried out.
In-depth knowledge also allows students to recognize more benefits as a result of
their actions and leads to an increased recognition of the impacts their actions can have.
Increasing knowledge also allows students to recognize a wider variety of actions that are
more efficient at accomplishing the desired conservation objectives. These results
indicate that knowledge will not lead to behavior change on its own, but can positively
influence other variables that do lead directly to behavior. These other variables should

113

be related back to the individual’s knowledge to allow them to habituate the desired
behavior (Athman & Monroe, 2001; Fernandez-Juricic, 2000).
Simply recognizing a benefit from actions is not sufficient to successfully
encourage behavior, the benefit must also be directly attributed to the individual. An
altruistic benefit appears to be enough for the students to want to perform actions, or
recognize they should be, but it is not enough for students to remember to consistently
perform them. Since habituation of these actions is imperative in the case of everyday
conservation behaviors EFB (Marcus, 2012; Zint, Kraemer, Northway, & Lim, 2002),
any program attempting to encourage similar behaviors should strive to make the
connections which encourage habituation.

7.4: Future Research
To determine the effectiveness of conservation based EE programs at promoting
water conservation in middle school students, long term studies are needed. The data
provided by this study and past research can help to inform future evaluations as to what
kinds of behaviors and benefits should be targeted by these programs. The data can also
help to pinpoint where connections between benefits perceived, overall importance of
issues, and impacts of actions are lacking in order to help fully understand how to
strengthen these connections.
Future research should focus on long term effects of exposure to programs, as
well as track how repeated exposure might influence the variables influential to EFB. It
will also be important to incorporate opportunities to observe actual conservation
behavior in students to make direct connections as to how these variables act in relation

114

to one another and which are the most influential for specified behaviors. Since the
present results indicate that the level of influence observed, and the connections made
were not influential to performing actual behavior, it would be worthwhile to see if
repeated exposure to conservation education programs is able to reinforce these variables.
It might be that exposure to the material is not sufficient in the short term but a continued
reinforcement may be able to encourage behavior more successfully.
Comparative studies should be undertaken to determine how generalizable the
conclusions of this research are. Do middle school students in different parts of the
United States reflect similar recognition of environmental issues, the benefits perceived,
and the impacts of their actions? It would stand to reason that the results of the same
survey, given to middle school students in a drought stricken region, might have
completely different results. It can be theorized that those students would be far less
likely to view economics as the primary benefit gained from conservation, and more
likely to view future use as the main benefit. A program such as Drops and Watts may be
much more effective at influencing behavior in that situation as there may not be a
disconnect between the large, global issue, and the direct benefit perceived by students.
This highlights the importance of studies that are specific to the program and region in
which they take place. By conducting further evaluations of more diverse areas and
populations, a common theme might be revealed that could apply to conservation
behavior on a larger scale. Comparative studies would also be useful in determining if
the level of influence the WET Center has over the observed variables is more or less
than the influence of other programs. Since it was determined that exposure to the Drops
and Watts program was alone not enough to encourage behavioral change, comparing it

115

to more or less successful programs would be useful in determining if these variables
should even be the focus of education, or if there are more effective ways education can
attempt to influence behavior.

116

Bibliography
Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Deicision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
Ardoin, N. M., & Heimlich, J. E. (2013). Views From the Field: Conservation Educators’
and Practitioners’ Perceptions of Education as a Strategy for Achieving
Conservation Outcomes. The Journal of Environmental Education, 44(2), 97–115.
doi:10.1080/00958964.2012.700963
Athman, J. A., & Monroe, M. C. (2001). Elements of Effective Environmental Education
Programs. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED463936
Busch, A., & Dayer, A. (2007). Mission Accomplished: Evaluating Education and
Meeting Conservation Goals. Conference Papers -- North American Association
of Environmental Education, 1.
Cary, J. W. (2008). Influencing attitudes and changing consumers’ household water
consumption behaviour. Water Science & Technology: Water Supply, 8(3), 325.
doi:10.2166/ws.2008.078
Crohn, K., & Birnbaum, M. (2010). Environmental education evaluation: Time to reflect,
time for change. Evaluation and Program Planning, 33(2), 155–158.
doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2009.07.004
Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring
Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale. Journal of
Social Issues, 56(3), 425–442.

117

Fernandez-Juricic, E. (2000). Conservation Education: The Need for Regional
Approaches Supporting Local Initiatives. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 28(1), 164–
167.
Heimlich, J. E. (2010). Environmental education evaluation: Reinterpreting education as
a strategy for meeting mission. Evaluation and Program Planning, 33(2), 180–
185. doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2009.07.009
Hudson, S. J. (2001). Challenges for Environmental Education: Issues and Ideas for the
21st Century Environmental education, a vital component of efforts to solve
environmental problems, must stay relevant to the needs and interests of the
community and yet constantly adapt to the rapidly changing social and
technological landscape. BioScience, 51(4), 283–288.
Hungerford, H., & Volk, T. (1990). Changing Learner Behavior Through Environmental
Education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 21(3), 8–21.
Kleiman, D. G., Wallace, R. L., Reading, R. P., Miller, B. J., Clark, T. W., Scott, J. M.,
… Felleman, F. (2000). Improving the Evaluation of Conservation Programs.
Conservation Biology, 14(2), 356–365.
Kruse, C. K., & Card, J. A. (2004). Effects of a conservation education camp program on
campers’ self-reported knowledge, attitude, and behavior. The Journal of
Environmental Education, 35(4), 33–45.
Lopez, A. G., & Cuervo-Arango, M. A. (2008). Relationship among values, beliefs,
norms and ecological behaviour. Relación Entre Los Valores, Creencias, Normas
Y La Conducta Ecológica., 20(4), 623–629.

118

Manoli, C. C., Johnson, B., & Dunlap, R. E. (2007). Assessing children’s environmental
worldviews: Modifying and validating the New Ecological Paradigm Scale for
use with children. The Journal of Environmental Education, 38(4), 3–13.
Marcus, A. (2012). Implementation of Environmental Education Case Study: Activating
the “Green School” Program Among Elementary School Students in Israel.
Geographia Technica, 16(2), 52–58.
McKenzie-Mohr, D., Nemiroff, L. S., Beers, L., & Desmarais, S. (1995). Determinants of
responsible environmental behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 51(4), 139–156.
Monroe, M. C. (2003). Two avenues for encouraging conservation behaviors. Human
Ecology Review, 10(2), 113–125.
Newton, B. J. (2001). Environmental Education and Outreach: Experiences of a Federal
Agency. BioScience, 51(4), 297.
Schelly, C., Cross, J. E., Franzen, W., Hall, P., & Reeve, S. (2012). How to Go Green:
Creating a Conservation Culture in a Public High School Through Education,
Modeling, and Communication. Journal of Environmental Education, 43(3), 143.
doi:10.1080/00958964.2011.631611
Smith-Sebasto, N. J. (1995). The Effects of an Environmental Studies Course on Selected
Variables Related To Environmentally Responsible Behavior. Journal of
Environmental Education, 26(4), 30–34.
Smith-Sebasto, N. J., & Semrau, H. J. (2004). Evaluation of the environmental education
program at the New Jersey School of Conservation. The Journal of
Environmental Education, 36(1), 3–18.

119

Smith-Sebasto, N. J., & Walker, L. M. (2005). Toward a Grounded Theory for
Residential Environmental Education: A Case Study of the New Jersey School of
Conservation. Journal of Environmental Education, 37(1), 27–42.
Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior.
Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424.
Stokking, K. M., Stichting Veldwerk Nederland., Netherlands., Ministerie van
Landbouw, N. en V., International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources., & Commission on Education and Communication. (1999). Evaluating
environmental education. Gland; Cambridge: Commission on Education and
Communication, IUCN.
Tao, Z. (2012). Education Programs on Environment. Procedia Environmental Sciences,
12, 349–353. doi:10.1016/j.proenv.2012.01.288
United Nations Educational, S., and Cultural Organization, Paris (France). (1978).
Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education Organized by
UNESCO in Co-operation with UNEP (Tbilisi, USSR, 14-26 October 1977). Final
Report.
Zint, M., Kraemer, A., Northway, H., & Lim, M. (2002). Evaluation of the Chesapeake
Bay Foundation’s conservation education programs. Conservation Biology, 16(3),
641–649.
Zufiaurre, B., Albertin, A. M., & Belletich, O. (2014). Education for Healthy Sustainable
Development. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 132, 196–202.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.298

120

121

Appendices

Appendix I – Survey
Pre-Participation Survey

122

123

124

Post-Participation Survey

125

126

127

128

Appendix II – Code Tables
Table 1: Codes for question: Is conserving water important?
Yes

No

Survival

Gets Recycled*

Scarcity

Plenty Available

Less need for
treatment**

Technology*

I don't know

Did not answer

Future Use
Ecosystem Impacts
Economic Benefit
Conserving Energy

Table 2: Codes for question: Does your electricity use affect water use?
Yes

No

Cleaning and Treatment
of water

No connection

I don't know

Did not answer

Generation
Transportation of
Water
Water Heating

* - Indicates code only appeared on pre-participation survey
** - Indicates code only appeared on post-participation survey

129

Table 3: Codes for question: Do you benefit from conserving water?
Yes

No

Conserving Energy

Future
Generations*

Economic

Plenty Available*

Ecosystem

Makes No
Difference**

I don't know

Did not answer

Future use
Health Benefits
More Available to
Others

Table 4: Codes for question: Do you benefit from conserving electricity?
Yes

No

Conserving
Water**

Nobody Else Is**

Economic

Still Using
Electricity**

Ecosystem

Unlimited Supply

I don't know

Did not answer

Future Use
Health Benefits

* - Indicates code only appeared on pre-participation survey
** - Indicates code only appeared on post-participation survey

130

Table 5: Codes for question: Are you performing all the water and electricity saving
actions you are aware of?
Yes

No

I don't know

Did not answer

Too Young*
Time
Just Learned About
Them**

I Don't Care
Forget
Family Doesn't
Comfort

Table 6: Codes for question: Will your actions to conserve water and electricity have an
impact?
Yes

No

I don't know

Did not answer

Survival*
More Available
Influence Others
Ecosystem
Economic

* - Indicates code only appeared on pre-participation survey
** - Indicates code only appeared on post-participation survey

131

Item sets

The Evergreen State College Masters Theses: Environmental Studies

Media

Ungerer_MMESthesis2015.pdf